So after reviewing the worst film I've ever seen, PROBLEM CHILD 2, it seems only natural I should discuss my favorite film of all time!
The first time I saw ONCE UPON A TIME IN AMERICA, I thought it was just okay. The
childhood sequences were great, but the story was long, and I guess I
felt it lost its way as it went on.
A year passed before I saw it again. I had only meant to watch a little
bit, and soon found myself sucked into watching the whole thing again.
Something just clicked that second time, and the first 40 minutes in
particular held a lot more weight. That is why I feel this film, more
than any other, NEEDS to be seen multiple times to be understood.
This movie is not really about gangsters, or prohibition, or unions.
This is all the window-dressing. This movie is about three characters:
Noodles, Max, and Deborah. Or rather, it is about one man's life, the
two people he loves, and the choices he makes. It is one of the few
films that really seems to capture an entire life on screen. And, while
this may sound clichéd, it's a story of the American dream, of wasted
potential, of the mistakes we make in our lives, of what it is to be an
old man. It tells an interesting story in its flashbacks, but then
wraps a "modern-day" story around it that is built on its own mystery.
Indeed, the movie is one big puzzle; it's probably the best example of
flashback structure ever done on film. Yes, even better than CITIZEN KANE.
The movie has some flaws, mostly because it was conceived on such a
vast scale. As you watch it, you definitely get the sense some scenes
are missing, and that some characters (Patsy, Cockeye, and Eve, in
particular) feel underdeveloped. However, the movie is able to get away
with this because what it DOES offer is so strong, and Robert DeNiro's
performance, so unstated, is so good. Despite its long run-time, it's
actually a very tight story; nearly every scene is about Noodles, and
that's why it is so intimate a portrait.
From a technical standpoint, you also have excellent art direction,
costumes, and Ennio Morricone's best score. "Deborah's Theme" is one of
the finest pieces ever composed. Also, no one ever mentions the
cinematography, which is so rich, particularly in the childhood scenes.
It's interesting that I've never been a fan of Sergio Leone's westerns.
Here is a film so different from most of his main body of work, not
only in physical setting, but in structure and tone. ONCE UPON A TIME IN AMERICA, along with FANNY AND ALEXANDER, is one of the few films
that truly makes me think of a novel in film form.
Sunday, February 12, 2012
Wednesday, February 8, 2012
My Top Ten Favorite Comedies
Comedy is the most subjective genre; everyone's list is always so different, and obviously they tend to go with sentimental choices or comedies they grew up. Also, it's hard to decide what defines comedy. I only wanted to include films that are purely comedies, so that means I'm not counting romantic comedies (so no MOONSTRUCK or ANNIE HALL) or fantasy comedies (so no PRINCESS BRIDE). So what does that leave us with? Let's see...
10. THE PRODUCERS (1968, dir. Mel Brooks)
Actually, I like both versions! The musical version did a pretty decent job at streamlining the story, taking out all the beatnik material that was dated to the '60's, and added some funny songs. But still, the original is just such a dark, enjoyable bleak film, and Zero Mostel and Gene Wilder had a chemistry with one another that was never duplicated. What makes this a great comedy is all the stuff in there. The central premise of dishonest producers wanting to put on a flop is already amusing. Then a subplot about romancing little old ladies is thrown in there. Then Nazis join the party. Then cross-dressers. It's really a very creative screenplay, albeit a little weak in the third act. You could argue that there are other Mel Brooks films that are better in quality, but I find this to be his most original comedy.
Interestingly, the next film on our list is ALSO a 1960's film that was turned into a stage musical and then remade on film...
9. LITTLE SHOP OF HORRORS (1960, dir. Roger Corman)
Unlike THE PRODUCERS, where both versions had the same basic story, the two versions of LITTLE SHOP are so different starring radically different characters that they really are two entirely different works. As much as I enjoy the Howard Ashman musical, and the 1986 film version directed by Frank Oz, the original Corman film is such a unique beast. The comedy is so dark and original for 1960. Dead prostitutes, a mother addicted to prescription drugs, a woman who's relatives keep dying...I was amazed at how much I laughed at this film. The original Seymour and Audrey are nothing like their later interpretations. I knew as soon as I saw this movie that it had to be one of the most unique works I had ever seen.
8. MY COUSIN VINNY (1992, dir. Jonathan Lynn)
A lot of people my generation list this among their favorite family comedies. This is one of those movies everyone loves and that still gets quoted often. I think a major reason for its success is that, despite having just about every negative stereotype of the south and of Italian New Yorkers, the script really likes its characters and treats the situation seriously. The movie is actually quite education in showing how the legal process works. Vinny is the classic fish out of water as the lawyer in a murder trial...where his cousin's life is at stake. Maris Tomei deservedly won an Oscar as his wise-cracking girlfriend; she could have just been a caricature, but she turns out to be the smartest person in the film. Fred Gwynne is also given some great moments as the judge. The movie also features so many great character actors, including Lane Smith, Austin Pendleton, and Bruce McGill. The best moments of course are the "Imagine you're a deer" and "Biological clock" monologues. Oh, and by the way, LEGALLY BLONDE, despite having a very different kind of humor, clearly drew a lot from this film's premise.
7. THIS IS SPINAL TAP (1984, dir. Rob Reiner)
This frequently gets cited on a lot of people's favorite comedies ever list, so I don't think I need to elaborate why. The many iconic moments in this (mostly improvised) film and classic lines still resonate to this day. I often think Christopher Guest and Michael McKean do not get enough credit for their performances; watch the film again and you'll see little subtleties you didn't see before.
6. FORGETTING SARAH MARSHALL (2008, dir. Nicholas Stoller)
I know I said "No romantic comedies" but I debated whether or not this even qualifies as one. To me, this is by far the best of the Judd Apatow movies, and one with a lot of heart. Jason Segel gives us a very heartfelt screenplay where he, both literally and figuratively, becomes naked before us. What I like best about this film is that it is told from a male point of view, yet portrays its female characters very sympathetically. In fact, some people even criticized that Kristen Bell's character was TOO well-developed, to the extent that she was too sympathetic for a "villain." Of course that's exactly the point! This is a lighthearted film that loves its characters, even the wacky side ones played by Russel Brand, Jonah Hill, and Paul Rudd. The best scene is when Peter performs his Dracula musical, which is funny, bizarre, and touching. There is such pathos in that scene. When we see the full musical performed at the end of the film, we finally "get" it, and it's very rewarding.
5. A FISH CALLED WANDA (1988, dir. Charles Chrichton)
This is just a perfect movie! It's so funny, so well-written, so filled with little moments. Who can forget Kevin Kline's orgasm-face? Or the way he keeps yelling "Asshole!" Or Michael Palin (in a very underrated performance) accidentally killing the old lady's dogs? This is a movie that, much like LITTLE SHOP, really has no shame and just goes out there. For any fans of FAWLTY TOWERS, this movie was the closest thing to a film version of that show we could ever have gotten. It's a film that finds the humor in anything, and then blows it up!
4. VACATION (1983, dir. Harold Ramis)
The Griswalds are going to Walley World! There is something so endearing about this film that it's no wonder it turned into a long-running franchise, though none of the sequels were ever able to match this original. I first saw this with my own parents when I was the same age as the kids in this film, and it REALLY hit close to home. Chevy Chase is so great as a father who really does genuinely love his family and really wants what he thinks is best for them, but is just such a dope that he fails. Bevery D'Angelo is great as the supportive but frustrated wife who has her own dorky moments. I love Anthony Michael Hall, especially in the scene with his first beer (which he chugs down). The dialog is brilliant, especially in any scene with Aunt Edna, who's ultimate fate is so brilliantly dark. Some people have claimed they are disappointed by what happens when we finally get to Walley World, but looking back on it, I don't think there was any other way to end it!
3. WOMEN ON THE VERGE OF A NERVOUS BREAKDOWN (1988, dir. Pedro Almodovar)
So not only is this the only foreign film on my list, but it's one of the most iconic films of Spanish cinema. Almodovar's screwball comedy with its flaring melodrama, bright colors, mambo cabdrivers, Muslim terrorists, and gazpacho resonates with many today. At a time when Madrid was recovering from the repression of Franco, the arts really began to emerge. This movie is crazy and shows all kinds of women at all stages of sanity. It also uses brilliant devices, such as having the womanizing man be a voiceover artist, thus featuring films within the film. Antonio Banderas, Rossy DePalma, and Carmen Maura are all ideally cast. And on a final note, I seem to be the only person alive who actually enjoyed the Broadway musical adaptation, which did so badly that is closed almost immediately. Glad I saw it when I did.
2. DR. STRANGELOVE (1964, dir. Stanley Kubrick)
Often cited as the greatest of all American comedies, or at least the most important one. Of course this movie is a masterpiece that also happens to be shot excellently and features so many great moments. I've always loved that it starts out serious and then only gradually becomes a comedy. It's easy to praise Peter Sellers in his three performances, but I actually think George C. Scott gives the best one. Slim Pickens is also great, as is Peter Bull, and then there's Tracy Reed, the only woman in the film, as the sexy secretary. Her scene may actually be the funniest in the film. Oh, yeah, and this also happens to be James Earl Jones's debut! This movie is so funny because it reminds us how much power we have places at the hands of our government politicians, who are very flawed people, and that we all do juvenile things. Consider the way Keenan Wynn's character keeps mispronouncing the word "preverts." It's a simple little touch, but it shows the incompetence of those in charge. To see this scene during the years of the Bush presidency was actually quite chilling.
...and the winner is...
1. CLUE (1985, dir. Jonathan Lynn)
As with MY COUSIN VINNY, also directed by Lynn, this is a movie that many of my generation grew up watching and think of as a family favorite. Why is this my all-time favorite comedy? I think because it really does have everything: slapstick, double entendre, political commentary. Although Tim Curry definitely steals the film, everyone else is so well-cast: Eileen Brennan, Martin Mull, Madeline Kahn, Leslie Ann Warren, and then there's Michael McKean again. My one criticism is that, on first viewing, the way that Mr. Green is presented might come off as homophobic, but if you watch it to the end then it's no longer an issue. Then there's Christopher Lloyd, who I sometimes call "the American Tim Curry." Ironically the one movie they do together is the one where he's so low-key that you almost don't recognize him. There are so many great lines, from "Communism is just a red herring" to "Life after death is as improbable as sex after marriage" to "Ah, he wasn't a very good illusionist" to "Can I interest you in fruit or desert?" to "I'm gonna go home and sleep with my wife!" And what a brilliant screenplay (co-written by John Landis) that manages to simultaneously be based off a classic board game, make commentary on McCarthyism and blackmail, and also have three different endings, all of which are compatible! CLUE is just my favorite comedy ever!
10. THE PRODUCERS (1968, dir. Mel Brooks)
Actually, I like both versions! The musical version did a pretty decent job at streamlining the story, taking out all the beatnik material that was dated to the '60's, and added some funny songs. But still, the original is just such a dark, enjoyable bleak film, and Zero Mostel and Gene Wilder had a chemistry with one another that was never duplicated. What makes this a great comedy is all the stuff in there. The central premise of dishonest producers wanting to put on a flop is already amusing. Then a subplot about romancing little old ladies is thrown in there. Then Nazis join the party. Then cross-dressers. It's really a very creative screenplay, albeit a little weak in the third act. You could argue that there are other Mel Brooks films that are better in quality, but I find this to be his most original comedy.
Interestingly, the next film on our list is ALSO a 1960's film that was turned into a stage musical and then remade on film...
9. LITTLE SHOP OF HORRORS (1960, dir. Roger Corman)
Unlike THE PRODUCERS, where both versions had the same basic story, the two versions of LITTLE SHOP are so different starring radically different characters that they really are two entirely different works. As much as I enjoy the Howard Ashman musical, and the 1986 film version directed by Frank Oz, the original Corman film is such a unique beast. The comedy is so dark and original for 1960. Dead prostitutes, a mother addicted to prescription drugs, a woman who's relatives keep dying...I was amazed at how much I laughed at this film. The original Seymour and Audrey are nothing like their later interpretations. I knew as soon as I saw this movie that it had to be one of the most unique works I had ever seen.
8. MY COUSIN VINNY (1992, dir. Jonathan Lynn)
A lot of people my generation list this among their favorite family comedies. This is one of those movies everyone loves and that still gets quoted often. I think a major reason for its success is that, despite having just about every negative stereotype of the south and of Italian New Yorkers, the script really likes its characters and treats the situation seriously. The movie is actually quite education in showing how the legal process works. Vinny is the classic fish out of water as the lawyer in a murder trial...where his cousin's life is at stake. Maris Tomei deservedly won an Oscar as his wise-cracking girlfriend; she could have just been a caricature, but she turns out to be the smartest person in the film. Fred Gwynne is also given some great moments as the judge. The movie also features so many great character actors, including Lane Smith, Austin Pendleton, and Bruce McGill. The best moments of course are the "Imagine you're a deer" and "Biological clock" monologues. Oh, and by the way, LEGALLY BLONDE, despite having a very different kind of humor, clearly drew a lot from this film's premise.
7. THIS IS SPINAL TAP (1984, dir. Rob Reiner)
This frequently gets cited on a lot of people's favorite comedies ever list, so I don't think I need to elaborate why. The many iconic moments in this (mostly improvised) film and classic lines still resonate to this day. I often think Christopher Guest and Michael McKean do not get enough credit for their performances; watch the film again and you'll see little subtleties you didn't see before.
6. FORGETTING SARAH MARSHALL (2008, dir. Nicholas Stoller)
I know I said "No romantic comedies" but I debated whether or not this even qualifies as one. To me, this is by far the best of the Judd Apatow movies, and one with a lot of heart. Jason Segel gives us a very heartfelt screenplay where he, both literally and figuratively, becomes naked before us. What I like best about this film is that it is told from a male point of view, yet portrays its female characters very sympathetically. In fact, some people even criticized that Kristen Bell's character was TOO well-developed, to the extent that she was too sympathetic for a "villain." Of course that's exactly the point! This is a lighthearted film that loves its characters, even the wacky side ones played by Russel Brand, Jonah Hill, and Paul Rudd. The best scene is when Peter performs his Dracula musical, which is funny, bizarre, and touching. There is such pathos in that scene. When we see the full musical performed at the end of the film, we finally "get" it, and it's very rewarding.
5. A FISH CALLED WANDA (1988, dir. Charles Chrichton)
This is just a perfect movie! It's so funny, so well-written, so filled with little moments. Who can forget Kevin Kline's orgasm-face? Or the way he keeps yelling "Asshole!" Or Michael Palin (in a very underrated performance) accidentally killing the old lady's dogs? This is a movie that, much like LITTLE SHOP, really has no shame and just goes out there. For any fans of FAWLTY TOWERS, this movie was the closest thing to a film version of that show we could ever have gotten. It's a film that finds the humor in anything, and then blows it up!
4. VACATION (1983, dir. Harold Ramis)
The Griswalds are going to Walley World! There is something so endearing about this film that it's no wonder it turned into a long-running franchise, though none of the sequels were ever able to match this original. I first saw this with my own parents when I was the same age as the kids in this film, and it REALLY hit close to home. Chevy Chase is so great as a father who really does genuinely love his family and really wants what he thinks is best for them, but is just such a dope that he fails. Bevery D'Angelo is great as the supportive but frustrated wife who has her own dorky moments. I love Anthony Michael Hall, especially in the scene with his first beer (which he chugs down). The dialog is brilliant, especially in any scene with Aunt Edna, who's ultimate fate is so brilliantly dark. Some people have claimed they are disappointed by what happens when we finally get to Walley World, but looking back on it, I don't think there was any other way to end it!
3. WOMEN ON THE VERGE OF A NERVOUS BREAKDOWN (1988, dir. Pedro Almodovar)
So not only is this the only foreign film on my list, but it's one of the most iconic films of Spanish cinema. Almodovar's screwball comedy with its flaring melodrama, bright colors, mambo cabdrivers, Muslim terrorists, and gazpacho resonates with many today. At a time when Madrid was recovering from the repression of Franco, the arts really began to emerge. This movie is crazy and shows all kinds of women at all stages of sanity. It also uses brilliant devices, such as having the womanizing man be a voiceover artist, thus featuring films within the film. Antonio Banderas, Rossy DePalma, and Carmen Maura are all ideally cast. And on a final note, I seem to be the only person alive who actually enjoyed the Broadway musical adaptation, which did so badly that is closed almost immediately. Glad I saw it when I did.
2. DR. STRANGELOVE (1964, dir. Stanley Kubrick)
Often cited as the greatest of all American comedies, or at least the most important one. Of course this movie is a masterpiece that also happens to be shot excellently and features so many great moments. I've always loved that it starts out serious and then only gradually becomes a comedy. It's easy to praise Peter Sellers in his three performances, but I actually think George C. Scott gives the best one. Slim Pickens is also great, as is Peter Bull, and then there's Tracy Reed, the only woman in the film, as the sexy secretary. Her scene may actually be the funniest in the film. Oh, yeah, and this also happens to be James Earl Jones's debut! This movie is so funny because it reminds us how much power we have places at the hands of our government politicians, who are very flawed people, and that we all do juvenile things. Consider the way Keenan Wynn's character keeps mispronouncing the word "preverts." It's a simple little touch, but it shows the incompetence of those in charge. To see this scene during the years of the Bush presidency was actually quite chilling.
...and the winner is...
1. CLUE (1985, dir. Jonathan Lynn)
As with MY COUSIN VINNY, also directed by Lynn, this is a movie that many of my generation grew up watching and think of as a family favorite. Why is this my all-time favorite comedy? I think because it really does have everything: slapstick, double entendre, political commentary. Although Tim Curry definitely steals the film, everyone else is so well-cast: Eileen Brennan, Martin Mull, Madeline Kahn, Leslie Ann Warren, and then there's Michael McKean again. My one criticism is that, on first viewing, the way that Mr. Green is presented might come off as homophobic, but if you watch it to the end then it's no longer an issue. Then there's Christopher Lloyd, who I sometimes call "the American Tim Curry." Ironically the one movie they do together is the one where he's so low-key that you almost don't recognize him. There are so many great lines, from "Communism is just a red herring" to "Life after death is as improbable as sex after marriage" to "Ah, he wasn't a very good illusionist" to "Can I interest you in fruit or desert?" to "I'm gonna go home and sleep with my wife!" And what a brilliant screenplay (co-written by John Landis) that manages to simultaneously be based off a classic board game, make commentary on McCarthyism and blackmail, and also have three different endings, all of which are compatible! CLUE is just my favorite comedy ever!
Friday, February 3, 2012
Film Review: PROBLEM CHILD 2 (1991, dir. Brian Levant)
For God so hated the world that he sent down this film, and those who watched it would not experience the joy of art, but perish in self-indulgent flatulence.
-John 3:16, really loosely translated.Everyone has their choice for "worst movie they've ever seen." Some like to pick on Gigli or Battlefield Earth. Some pick on classics like Plan 9 From Outer Space. Ever since I was 14 I have been very vocal in saying that to me, it is Problem Child 2, and all these years later, I feel the exact same way. It's not "one of the worst," it's not just an expression. It is THE ACTUAL worst movie I have ever seen.
How much farting, shitting, pissing, and puking can you put in a single movie? I don't need to see a dog take a dump that goes up to my waist! Why is it that I'm so hard on this filth? I have nothing against bathroom or gross-out humor. Heck, I like the American Pie movies. Having such an excess of it within 90 minutes is a bad idea, but the true tipping point is to do it with kids! Having little kids call each other dickheads and urinate and puke on each other just makes the whole thing feel dirtier. Worst line in the movie: "I guess I should fart in more people's offices."
What other film has: urination into lemonade, dynamite sticks exploding toilets, a little boy filming his babysitter having sex and projecting it on the side of the house, and a little girl joking about scratching testicles?
However, my absolute favorite moment has to be when the same little girl is on a carnival ride, says: "I'm gonna puke," opens her mouth, and fake looking puke shoots straight out of her open mouth in a perfect 90 degree angle! The puking scene in Scary Movie 2 looked more real than that.
I suppose the only redeeming element in the movie is Gilbert Gottfried. You get the impression that he didn't even have a script, but was just being his usual self. Too bad he has to act stupid while pizza gets thrown on him.
You know what? Thinking about the movie this much has just made me have to go to the bathroom. Goodbye!
Film Review: DOGMA (1999, dir. Kevin Smith)
I've always had mixed feelings about Dogma, and I feel that the best
way to sum it up is as follows:
As a comedy, the movie is hysterical! It has some incredibly funny dialog, mostly delivered by Alan Rickman, Jason Lee, and Jason Mewes's characters. As an adventure movie, it has a very creative plot and keeps you hooked throughout its journey to its epic and apocalyptic conclusion.
Where the movie fails and fails miserably is at being any sort of actual commentary on religion. Despite the many conversations about religion and dogmas held throughout the film...nothing all that "deep" is ever really said. The movie ultimately has a shallow message of "God is cool. Just have a sense of humor and an open mind." And this is a shame because Kevin Smith is clearly a bright guy who knows a lot about church history; he even claims in the closing credits that the film represents his lifetime's worth of religious reflection. You'd think he'd have said something a little more sophisticated.
In fact, despite being somewhat controversial when it came out, the movie never really is all that shocking. Yes, I realize there are religious zealots out there who get "offended" by even the slightest things (Angels and prophets using curse words! Jesus having a 13th apostle! Jesus being black! God being a woman!). But with all due respect, none of those things are REALLY controversial. I would have liked the movie to have been deeper and delved into greater issues like: the possibility of God not existing, or Jesus having been an invented character, or exposing the corruption of the Catholic Church, or what about the role of Judaism and Islam? That would have given the film a lot more weight in my opinion.
Fortunately, as I said, the movie is a lot of fun, and so I am able to sit back and laugh at what it offers. Rickman, Lee, and Salma Hayek all give the best performances. I do feel Linda Fiorentino is somewhat underwhelming; despite being the lead character, she frequently seems like the dullest thing in the film. I have heard that she and Smith did not get along, and maybe that affected why there seems to be so little to Bethany.
Dogma is a very fun and entertaining movie, but alas, it's not very deep, despite what the director seemed to think of it. Listening to Kevin Smith on the DVD commentary track is almost sad; he talks about how he was disappointed the movie didn't get Oscar nominations. Well, here's why: BECAUSE YOUR MOVIE HAS A SCENE WITH A SHIT MONSTER! Smith could have made a stronger, deeper film if he had really tried. Instead he just made a little comedy, and there's nothing wrong with that. It's a very good movie to laugh with; it's just not good for much more than that.
As a comedy, the movie is hysterical! It has some incredibly funny dialog, mostly delivered by Alan Rickman, Jason Lee, and Jason Mewes's characters. As an adventure movie, it has a very creative plot and keeps you hooked throughout its journey to its epic and apocalyptic conclusion.
Where the movie fails and fails miserably is at being any sort of actual commentary on religion. Despite the many conversations about religion and dogmas held throughout the film...nothing all that "deep" is ever really said. The movie ultimately has a shallow message of "God is cool. Just have a sense of humor and an open mind." And this is a shame because Kevin Smith is clearly a bright guy who knows a lot about church history; he even claims in the closing credits that the film represents his lifetime's worth of religious reflection. You'd think he'd have said something a little more sophisticated.
In fact, despite being somewhat controversial when it came out, the movie never really is all that shocking. Yes, I realize there are religious zealots out there who get "offended" by even the slightest things (Angels and prophets using curse words! Jesus having a 13th apostle! Jesus being black! God being a woman!). But with all due respect, none of those things are REALLY controversial. I would have liked the movie to have been deeper and delved into greater issues like: the possibility of God not existing, or Jesus having been an invented character, or exposing the corruption of the Catholic Church, or what about the role of Judaism and Islam? That would have given the film a lot more weight in my opinion.
Fortunately, as I said, the movie is a lot of fun, and so I am able to sit back and laugh at what it offers. Rickman, Lee, and Salma Hayek all give the best performances. I do feel Linda Fiorentino is somewhat underwhelming; despite being the lead character, she frequently seems like the dullest thing in the film. I have heard that she and Smith did not get along, and maybe that affected why there seems to be so little to Bethany.
Dogma is a very fun and entertaining movie, but alas, it's not very deep, despite what the director seemed to think of it. Listening to Kevin Smith on the DVD commentary track is almost sad; he talks about how he was disappointed the movie didn't get Oscar nominations. Well, here's why: BECAUSE YOUR MOVIE HAS A SCENE WITH A SHIT MONSTER! Smith could have made a stronger, deeper film if he had really tried. Instead he just made a little comedy, and there's nothing wrong with that. It's a very good movie to laugh with; it's just not good for much more than that.
Film Review: MATILDA (1996, dir. Danny DeVito)
The summer of 1996 was an exciting time. Despite being one of the most popular children's authors of the modern era, very few films adaptations had been made of Roald Dahl's work, and now all of a sudden, two were coming out in the same year. Of the two, I was much more excited for JAMES AND THE GIANT PEACH, a classic of my childhood. To my surprise, MATILDA ended up being the stronger film, and a movie that's endured with many children who grew up in the late '90's. I appreciated MATILDA when it came out, and over the years it's really grown on me. Even as an adult, it's a movie I love and remember very well.
What I love about this story, both in the book and in the movie, is that it empowers children to be independent and not rely on parents and educators, who are portrayed as far from perfect but very flawed. Matilda is a gifted, resourceful, and kindhearted little girl. Yet her parents are self-absorbed, ignorant buffoons who barely know how old she is, and her principal is an abusive tyrant. Only in her teacher does she finally find someone who supports her. I think this rings true to a lot of children. Miss Trunchbull, while obviously exaggerated for comedic effect, represents a problem that I think exists in many schools: educators are more concerned with discipline and authority than they are with actually helping students.
What makes this movie so great is how much heart it has. A lot of Dahl's writing is so wacky and grotesque that I don't think it works on film (THE WITCHES had that problem). MATILDA tells a very human story, even when it does get grotesque. Mara Wilson and Embeth Davidtz both do an excellent job and carry the weight of the film. Danny DeVito's direction also deserves credit. DeVito seems to really "get" Dahl's writing; I especially love the way he directs the "chocolate cake" scene. Another director would've had a difficult time making chocolate cake seem like a punishment, but DeVito sets up and shoots the scene in a way that gets under your skin. I love the way he manages to make the cake look disgusting and the Cook look a little creepy. It's little touches like that that make the film great. I also admire DeVito's decision to play dual roles: he plays Matilda's unpleasant father and he is also the story's narrator. This makes the story seem very personal and his narration truly captures the heart of the tale.
The movie is not 100% faithful to the book. Yes, the story is Americanized (though Miss Trunchbull remains British), and some new material is added probably to make the story more commercial (such as a subplot with two bumbling FBI agents, and a thrilling scene where Matilda returns to Miss Trunchbull's house at night). However, these additions do not hurt the story at all, but actually flesh it out. In my opinion, a lot of Dahl's books suffered from weak climaxes, but this film gets it right, while at the same time retaining everything that made Dahl's writing shine.
Dahl and DeVito clearly remember that being a child can be a very scary time. Adults tower over you and have the power to bully you. This film captures that, and its power continue to live on as children continue to embrace it.
Gabe's 100 Favorite Films!
I last made a list like this when I was a kid so I wanted to update.
I don't like to rank films opposite each other, so although I do have a
Top 5, I listed the rest in alphabetical order. Is US/UK unless
otherwise indicated:
1. ONCE UPON A TIME IN AMERICA (1984, dir. Sergio Leone, US & ITALY)
2. FANNY AND ALEXANDER (1982, dir. Ingmar Bergman, SWEDEN)
3. RETURN TO OZ (1985, dir. Walter Murch)
4. NETWORK (1976, dir. Sidney Lumet)
5. SUNSET BLVD (1950, dir. Billy Wilder)
12 ANGRY MEN (1957, dir. Sidney Lumet)
1776 (1972, dir. Peter H. Hunt)
2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY (1968, dir. Stanley Kubrick)
8½ (1963, dir. Federico Fellini, ITALY)
AFTER LIFE (1998, dir. Hirukazu Koreeda, JAPAN)
ALADDIN (1992, dir. John Musker & Ron Clements)
ALIENS (1986, dir. James Cameron)
ALL ABOUT MY MOTHER (1999, dir. Pedro Almodovar, SPAIN)
ALL QUIET ON THE WESTERN FRONT (1930, dir. Lewis Milestone)
AMERICAN MOVIE (1999, dir. Chris Smith, DOCUMENTARY )
APOCALYPSE NOW REDUX (1979 & 2001, dir. Francis Ford Coppola)
BAD EDUCATION (2004, dir. Pedro Almodovar, SPAIN)
BARAKA (1992, dir. Ron Fricke, DOCUMENTARY)
BEAUTY AND THE BEAST (1991, dir. Gary Trousald & Kirk Wise)
A BOY NAMED CHARLIE BROWN (1969, dir. Bill Melendez)
BRAZIL (1985, dir. Terry Gilliam)
BROKEN EMBRACES (2009, dir. Pedro Almodovar, SPAIN)
CINEMA PARADISO (1988, dir. Guiseppe Tornatore, ITALY)
CITIZEN KANE (1941, dir. Orson Welles)
CLERKS (1994, dir. Kevin Smith)
CLUE (1985, dir. Jonathan Lynn)
COME AND SEE (1985, dir. Elem Klimov, USSR)
CRIES AND WHISPERS (1973, dir. Ingmar Bergman, SWEDEN)
CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS (1989, dir. Woody Allen)
THE DARK KNIGHT (2008, dir. Christopher Nolan)
DAY FOR NIGHT (1973, dir. Francois Truffaut, FRANCE)
THE DEVIL'S BACKBONE (2001, dir. Guillermo Del Toro, MEXICO & SPAIN)
DOWNFALL (2004, dir. Oliver Hirschbiegel, GERMANY)
DR. STRANGELOVE (1964, dir. Stanley Kubrick)
E.T. THE EXTRA TERRESTRIAL (1982, dir. Steven Spielberg)
ED WOOD (1994, dir. Tim Burton)
THE EMPIRE STRIKES BACK (1980, dir. Irvin Kershner)
EVITA (1996, dir. Alan Parker)
EYES WIDE SHUT (1999, dir. Stanley Kubrick)
FANTASIA (1940, dir. Walt Disney)
FARGO (1996, dir. The Coen Brothers)
FORGETTING SARAH MARSHALL (2008, dir. Nicholas Staller)
FOUR WEDDINGS AND A FUNERAL (1994, dir. Mike Newell)
THE GODFATHER (1972, dir. Francis Ford Coppola)
THE GODFATHER: PART II (1974, dir. Francis Ford Coppola)
GONE WITH THE WIND (1939, dir. Victor Fleming & other directors, REALLY directed by David O. Selznick)
GOODFELLAS (1990, dir. Martin Scorsese)
THE GREEN MILE (1999, dir. Frank Darabont)
HANNAH AND HER SISTERS (1986, dir. Woody Allen)
HARRY POTTER AND THE ORDER OF THE PHOENIX (2007, dir. David Yates) [NOTE: This is really a stand-in for the series in general, but this is the entry that I enjoy the most].
HEARTS OF DARKNESS: A FILMMAKER'S APOCALYPSE (1991, dir. Fax Bahr & George Hickenlooper, DOCUMENTARY)
HIROSHIMA, MON AMOUR (1959, dir. Alain Resnais, FRANCE)
THE HUNCHBACK OF NOTRE DAME (1996, dir. Gary Trousald & Kirk Wise)
L.A. CONFIDENTIAL (1997, dir. Curtis Hanson)
THE LAST EMPEROR (1987, dir. Bernardo Bertolucci, UK/CHINA/ITALY)
THE LORD OF THE RINGS (2001, 2002, 2003, dir. Peter Jackson)
MANHATTAN (1979, dir. Woody Allen)
MARY POPPINS (1964, dir. Robert Stevenson)
MATILDA (1996, dir. Danny DeVito)
THE MIGHTY (1998, dir. Peter Chelsom)
MOONSTRUCK (1987, dir. Norman Jewison)
MOULIN ROUGE (2001, dir. Baz Luhrmann)
MULHOLLAND DRIVE (2001, dir. David Lynch)
MY COUSIN VINNY (1992, dir. Jonathan Lynn)
OLDBOY (2003, dir. Chan-wook Park, SOUTH KOREA)
ONCE UPON A TIME IN THE WEST (1968, dir. Sergio Leone, USA & ITALY)
ONE FLEW OVER THE CUCKOO'S NEST (1975, dir. Milos Foreman)
PAN'S LABYRINTH (2006, dir. Guillermo Del Toro, MEXICO & SPAIN)
THE PRINCESS BRIDE (1987, dir. Rob Reiner)
PRINCESS MONONOKE (1997, dir. Hayao Miyazaki, JAPAN)
PULP FICTION (1994, dir. Quentin Tarantino)
RAGING BULL (1980, dir. Martin Scorsese)
RAN (1985, dir. Akira Kurosawa, JAPAN)
THE ROCKY HORROR PICTURE SHOW (1975, dir. Jim Sharman)
ROME: OPEN CITY (1945, dir. Roberto Rossellini, ITALY)
ROSEMARY'S BABY (1968, dir. Roman Polanski)
SAVING PRIVATE RYAN (1998, dir. Steven Spielberg)
THE SEARCHERS (1956, dir. John Ford)
THE SECRET GARDEN (1993, dir. Agnieszka Holland)
SE7EN (1995, dir. David Fincher)
THE SEVEN SAMURAI (1954, dir. Akira Kurosawa, JAPAN)
THE SHAWSHANK REDEMPTION (1994, dir. Frank Darabont)
SLEEPING BEAUTY (1959, dir. Walt Disney)
THE SOUND OF MUSIC (1965, dir. Robert Wise)
STAND BY ME (1986, dir. Rob Reiner)
STAR TREK II: THE WRATH OF KHAN (1982, dir. Nicholas Meyer)
TALK TO HER (2002, dir. Pedro Almodovar, SPAIN)
TASTE OF CHERRY (1997, dir. Abbas Kiarostami, IRAN)
THERE WILL BE BLOOD (2007, dir. Paul Thomas Andersen)
THIS IS SPINAL TAP (1984, dir. Rob Reiner)
THROUGH A GLASS DARKLY (1961, dir. Ingmar Bergman, SWEDEN)
TO KILL A MOCKINGBIRD (1962, dir. Robert Mulligan)
TREKKIES (1997, dir. Roger Nygard, DOCUMENTARY)
UMBERTO D. (1952, dir. Vittoria De Sica, ITALY)
VACATION (1983, dir. Harold Ramis)
VERTIGO (1958, dir. Alfred Hitchcock)
THE WIZARD OF OZ (1939, dir. Victor Fleming & other directors)
WOMEN ON THE VERGE OF A NERVOUS BREAKDOWN (1988, dir. Pedro Almodovar, SPAIN)
WHO FRAMED ROGER RABBIT (1988, dir. Robert Zemickas)
WHO'S AFRAID OF VIRGINIA WOOLF? (1966, dir. Mike Nichols)
1. ONCE UPON A TIME IN AMERICA (1984, dir. Sergio Leone, US & ITALY)
2. FANNY AND ALEXANDER (1982, dir. Ingmar Bergman, SWEDEN)
3. RETURN TO OZ (1985, dir. Walter Murch)
4. NETWORK (1976, dir. Sidney Lumet)
5. SUNSET BLVD (1950, dir. Billy Wilder)
12 ANGRY MEN (1957, dir. Sidney Lumet)
1776 (1972, dir. Peter H. Hunt)
2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY (1968, dir. Stanley Kubrick)
8½ (1963, dir. Federico Fellini, ITALY)
AFTER LIFE (1998, dir. Hirukazu Koreeda, JAPAN)
ALADDIN (1992, dir. John Musker & Ron Clements)
ALIENS (1986, dir. James Cameron)
ALL ABOUT MY MOTHER (1999, dir. Pedro Almodovar, SPAIN)
ALL QUIET ON THE WESTERN FRONT (1930, dir. Lewis Milestone)
AMERICAN MOVIE (1999, dir. Chris Smith, DOCUMENTARY )
APOCALYPSE NOW REDUX (1979 & 2001, dir. Francis Ford Coppola)
BAD EDUCATION (2004, dir. Pedro Almodovar, SPAIN)
BARAKA (1992, dir. Ron Fricke, DOCUMENTARY)
BEAUTY AND THE BEAST (1991, dir. Gary Trousald & Kirk Wise)
A BOY NAMED CHARLIE BROWN (1969, dir. Bill Melendez)
BRAZIL (1985, dir. Terry Gilliam)
BROKEN EMBRACES (2009, dir. Pedro Almodovar, SPAIN)
CINEMA PARADISO (1988, dir. Guiseppe Tornatore, ITALY)
CITIZEN KANE (1941, dir. Orson Welles)
CLERKS (1994, dir. Kevin Smith)
CLUE (1985, dir. Jonathan Lynn)
COME AND SEE (1985, dir. Elem Klimov, USSR)
CRIES AND WHISPERS (1973, dir. Ingmar Bergman, SWEDEN)
CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS (1989, dir. Woody Allen)
THE DARK KNIGHT (2008, dir. Christopher Nolan)
DAY FOR NIGHT (1973, dir. Francois Truffaut, FRANCE)
THE DEVIL'S BACKBONE (2001, dir. Guillermo Del Toro, MEXICO & SPAIN)
DOWNFALL (2004, dir. Oliver Hirschbiegel, GERMANY)
DR. STRANGELOVE (1964, dir. Stanley Kubrick)
E.T. THE EXTRA TERRESTRIAL (1982, dir. Steven Spielberg)
ED WOOD (1994, dir. Tim Burton)
THE EMPIRE STRIKES BACK (1980, dir. Irvin Kershner)
EVITA (1996, dir. Alan Parker)
EYES WIDE SHUT (1999, dir. Stanley Kubrick)
FANTASIA (1940, dir. Walt Disney)
FARGO (1996, dir. The Coen Brothers)
FORGETTING SARAH MARSHALL (2008, dir. Nicholas Staller)
FOUR WEDDINGS AND A FUNERAL (1994, dir. Mike Newell)
THE GODFATHER (1972, dir. Francis Ford Coppola)
THE GODFATHER: PART II (1974, dir. Francis Ford Coppola)
GONE WITH THE WIND (1939, dir. Victor Fleming & other directors, REALLY directed by David O. Selznick)
GOODFELLAS (1990, dir. Martin Scorsese)
THE GREEN MILE (1999, dir. Frank Darabont)
HANNAH AND HER SISTERS (1986, dir. Woody Allen)
HARRY POTTER AND THE ORDER OF THE PHOENIX (2007, dir. David Yates) [NOTE: This is really a stand-in for the series in general, but this is the entry that I enjoy the most].
HEARTS OF DARKNESS: A FILMMAKER'S APOCALYPSE (1991, dir. Fax Bahr & George Hickenlooper, DOCUMENTARY)
HIROSHIMA, MON AMOUR (1959, dir. Alain Resnais, FRANCE)
THE HUNCHBACK OF NOTRE DAME (1996, dir. Gary Trousald & Kirk Wise)
L.A. CONFIDENTIAL (1997, dir. Curtis Hanson)
THE LAST EMPEROR (1987, dir. Bernardo Bertolucci, UK/CHINA/ITALY)
THE LORD OF THE RINGS (2001, 2002, 2003, dir. Peter Jackson)
MANHATTAN (1979, dir. Woody Allen)
MARY POPPINS (1964, dir. Robert Stevenson)
MATILDA (1996, dir. Danny DeVito)
THE MIGHTY (1998, dir. Peter Chelsom)
MOONSTRUCK (1987, dir. Norman Jewison)
MOULIN ROUGE (2001, dir. Baz Luhrmann)
MULHOLLAND DRIVE (2001, dir. David Lynch)
MY COUSIN VINNY (1992, dir. Jonathan Lynn)
OLDBOY (2003, dir. Chan-wook Park, SOUTH KOREA)
ONCE UPON A TIME IN THE WEST (1968, dir. Sergio Leone, USA & ITALY)
ONE FLEW OVER THE CUCKOO'S NEST (1975, dir. Milos Foreman)
PAN'S LABYRINTH (2006, dir. Guillermo Del Toro, MEXICO & SPAIN)
THE PRINCESS BRIDE (1987, dir. Rob Reiner)
PRINCESS MONONOKE (1997, dir. Hayao Miyazaki, JAPAN)
PULP FICTION (1994, dir. Quentin Tarantino)
RAGING BULL (1980, dir. Martin Scorsese)
RAN (1985, dir. Akira Kurosawa, JAPAN)
THE ROCKY HORROR PICTURE SHOW (1975, dir. Jim Sharman)
ROME: OPEN CITY (1945, dir. Roberto Rossellini, ITALY)
ROSEMARY'S BABY (1968, dir. Roman Polanski)
SAVING PRIVATE RYAN (1998, dir. Steven Spielberg)
THE SEARCHERS (1956, dir. John Ford)
THE SECRET GARDEN (1993, dir. Agnieszka Holland)
SE7EN (1995, dir. David Fincher)
THE SEVEN SAMURAI (1954, dir. Akira Kurosawa, JAPAN)
THE SHAWSHANK REDEMPTION (1994, dir. Frank Darabont)
SLEEPING BEAUTY (1959, dir. Walt Disney)
THE SOUND OF MUSIC (1965, dir. Robert Wise)
STAND BY ME (1986, dir. Rob Reiner)
STAR TREK II: THE WRATH OF KHAN (1982, dir. Nicholas Meyer)
TALK TO HER (2002, dir. Pedro Almodovar, SPAIN)
TASTE OF CHERRY (1997, dir. Abbas Kiarostami, IRAN)
THERE WILL BE BLOOD (2007, dir. Paul Thomas Andersen)
THIS IS SPINAL TAP (1984, dir. Rob Reiner)
THROUGH A GLASS DARKLY (1961, dir. Ingmar Bergman, SWEDEN)
TO KILL A MOCKINGBIRD (1962, dir. Robert Mulligan)
TREKKIES (1997, dir. Roger Nygard, DOCUMENTARY)
UMBERTO D. (1952, dir. Vittoria De Sica, ITALY)
VACATION (1983, dir. Harold Ramis)
VERTIGO (1958, dir. Alfred Hitchcock)
THE WIZARD OF OZ (1939, dir. Victor Fleming & other directors)
WOMEN ON THE VERGE OF A NERVOUS BREAKDOWN (1988, dir. Pedro Almodovar, SPAIN)
WHO FRAMED ROGER RABBIT (1988, dir. Robert Zemickas)
WHO'S AFRAID OF VIRGINIA WOOLF? (1966, dir. Mike Nichols)
What is a Truly "Feminist Flick?"
I was recently tagged in
a discussion asking this question, and now's the first time in a week
I've been able to sit down and write anything. So here goes. Now,
there's two ways to go about answering this:
IN TERMS OF STORYTELLING: This would come down to how women are literally represented as characters, who the protagonist is, does the story have a misogynist or misandric message, etc.
IN TERMS OF FILMMAKING: Do things like shot composition and cinematic language relate to gender? Is there a more "feminine" way to shoot a film? I don't feel we really know this because of the overwhelming lack of female DP's! A bit ironic as there are so many female photographers, but I find so few women in the cinematography field. When Kathryn Bigelow won Best Director, everyone made such a big deal. She was the first woman to win and only the fourth to ever be nominated. But no one has addressed the fact that not a single female DP has EVER been nominated for the Best Cinematography Oscar.
So I can only give my own experiences here:
Ever since college, I started writing scripts that focused more on women not for any of my personal politics, but for economic reasons: the Drama department consisted mostly of girls and the female roles in scripts were always the easiest to cast. Yet the majority of mainstream plays and musicals had predominantly male casts (DAMN YANKEES in particular is criticized for having virtually no female roles) and here my school was struggling to cast it when it had a pool of actors consisting mostly of women. So I went in a different direction. The first feature screenplay I ever wrote was about a female filmmaker named Sara, who was adequately described as a portrait of myself with a vagina. It also seemed to me that female characters allowed for more complexity, plus women make MUCH better villains. From Lady Macbeth to the Wicked Witch of the West, women play evil better than me. Is that a sexist attitude? I don't know; I just always felt that Darth Vader was a great badass, but he didn't scare me. Witches did!
Having written a few LGBT characters, I think that area tends to be slanted as well. In high school, when WILL & GRACE was at the peak of its popularity, I noticed that there were tons of gay men characters on TV, but lesbian characters were marginalized. Movies with transgendered characters are almost always about men-turned-women, and never the vice versa; I guess the former is "funnier." My first film is about a lesbian, but it's not about lesbianism. I wanted to do a character, where character and emotions came first, and gender and sexuality are only enhancements of this character, not definers.
One thing that Feminists often bring up is how many men have a misunderstanding of the term and assume it to simply mean misandry. I'll admit to feeling that way for the early years of my life, but I think that once again, the movies have constructed this fake definition. I am turned off by is the standard "chick flick" and the stereotype of what this. This is Faux Feminism; something that panders and puts artifice and occasional misandry over quality storytelling or filmmaking. [Furthermore, why are they always associated with sappy titles? Ever see MUSIC OF THE HEART with Meryl Streep? It's actually a good movie, but why in the fuck did Wes Craven choose a title that no self-respecting man would ever go for?] I remember seeing FRIED GREEN TOMATOES (a movie often cited as a textbook example of a chick flick) with my first girlfriend. It's been many years so my memory may not be fair to the film, but I felt it was so artificial in its Feminism. The Abusive Husband felt phoned-in, abusing his wife in a cartoonish way that seemed to say to the audience "There! Have we made it clear that this guy is bad?" Most of all, it bothered me that Kathy Bates's character went from being bossed around by her husband to bossing him around by the end. I found the movie hypocritical, while my then-girlfriend happened to love it. Now maybe I missed something, but the movie has never really called me back. The majority of "chick flick" and made-for-Lifetime movies I've seen seem to be in the same vein.
Finally, there's the issue of sex in cinema. While many, many, MANY movies have featured sex scene with female nudity (whether or not this is misogyny or exploitative is a whole other issue), there never seemed to be many scenes in mainstream movies where the female characters just TALKED about sex. I love writing dialog about sex; having women discuss desire and admit to pleasure. I think this shines the most interesting light on characters. As a kid, I realized that indie and foreign films focused so much more on discussions about sex, and I was hooked. Perhaps the single best example of this is Almodovar's ALL ABOUT MY MOTHER, which may well be the most feminine film ever made, a movie that celebrates Woman as an Actress, Mother, Lover, Nun, Drag Queen, or Transsexual. But for a more mainstream example, I think there's a strong reason why SEX AND THE CITY became the hit it did. The show focused on two things: sororal relationships and TALKING about sex. The result wasn't just that women loved the show, but that they loved watching it with other women! When the 2008 film adaptation came out, there was talk of women buying out entire cinema showings so that they could pack the place with all of their girlfriends and watch it together. My girlfriend at that time mentioned she wanted to see it and when I offered to take her she said, "No, that's a movie that girls have to see with other girls." Watching films is just as communal an experience as the process of making films is, and if SEX AND THE CITY was able to affect that communal experience, that might be making a stronger statement than we realize.
So is SEX AND THE CITY a truly feminist work? It's a show that has always had male fans, and while I personally didn't watch it enough to follow it, I could tell from the few episodes I've seen that the writing was very good and treated its characters intelligently. I think good storytelling is universal, and all I can do is write as I find interesting. You may think differently: perhaps male characters are more interesting to you than women; that's fine. But I feel this little editorial has left me with the following conclusions: 1. Story comes before Political Message, 2. Characterization comes before Gender, 3. Intelligent Writing is inclusive of everyone, and 4. Sexuality is just plain interesting, especially about women.
Dang, I wrote a lot. I didn't even get to talk about LITTLE WOMEN, PRIDE AND PREJUDICE, HUSH HUSH SWEET CHARLOTTE, ANIMAL HOUSE, or FAST TIMES AT RIDGEMONT HIGH, all of which relate to this subject. But I hope I gave an interesting answer to the question...
IN TERMS OF STORYTELLING: This would come down to how women are literally represented as characters, who the protagonist is, does the story have a misogynist or misandric message, etc.
IN TERMS OF FILMMAKING: Do things like shot composition and cinematic language relate to gender? Is there a more "feminine" way to shoot a film? I don't feel we really know this because of the overwhelming lack of female DP's! A bit ironic as there are so many female photographers, but I find so few women in the cinematography field. When Kathryn Bigelow won Best Director, everyone made such a big deal. She was the first woman to win and only the fourth to ever be nominated. But no one has addressed the fact that not a single female DP has EVER been nominated for the Best Cinematography Oscar.
So I can only give my own experiences here:
Ever since college, I started writing scripts that focused more on women not for any of my personal politics, but for economic reasons: the Drama department consisted mostly of girls and the female roles in scripts were always the easiest to cast. Yet the majority of mainstream plays and musicals had predominantly male casts (DAMN YANKEES in particular is criticized for having virtually no female roles) and here my school was struggling to cast it when it had a pool of actors consisting mostly of women. So I went in a different direction. The first feature screenplay I ever wrote was about a female filmmaker named Sara, who was adequately described as a portrait of myself with a vagina. It also seemed to me that female characters allowed for more complexity, plus women make MUCH better villains. From Lady Macbeth to the Wicked Witch of the West, women play evil better than me. Is that a sexist attitude? I don't know; I just always felt that Darth Vader was a great badass, but he didn't scare me. Witches did!
Having written a few LGBT characters, I think that area tends to be slanted as well. In high school, when WILL & GRACE was at the peak of its popularity, I noticed that there were tons of gay men characters on TV, but lesbian characters were marginalized. Movies with transgendered characters are almost always about men-turned-women, and never the vice versa; I guess the former is "funnier." My first film is about a lesbian, but it's not about lesbianism. I wanted to do a character, where character and emotions came first, and gender and sexuality are only enhancements of this character, not definers.
One thing that Feminists often bring up is how many men have a misunderstanding of the term and assume it to simply mean misandry. I'll admit to feeling that way for the early years of my life, but I think that once again, the movies have constructed this fake definition. I am turned off by is the standard "chick flick" and the stereotype of what this. This is Faux Feminism; something that panders and puts artifice and occasional misandry over quality storytelling or filmmaking. [Furthermore, why are they always associated with sappy titles? Ever see MUSIC OF THE HEART with Meryl Streep? It's actually a good movie, but why in the fuck did Wes Craven choose a title that no self-respecting man would ever go for?] I remember seeing FRIED GREEN TOMATOES (a movie often cited as a textbook example of a chick flick) with my first girlfriend. It's been many years so my memory may not be fair to the film, but I felt it was so artificial in its Feminism. The Abusive Husband felt phoned-in, abusing his wife in a cartoonish way that seemed to say to the audience "There! Have we made it clear that this guy is bad?" Most of all, it bothered me that Kathy Bates's character went from being bossed around by her husband to bossing him around by the end. I found the movie hypocritical, while my then-girlfriend happened to love it. Now maybe I missed something, but the movie has never really called me back. The majority of "chick flick" and made-for-Lifetime movies I've seen seem to be in the same vein.
Finally, there's the issue of sex in cinema. While many, many, MANY movies have featured sex scene with female nudity (whether or not this is misogyny or exploitative is a whole other issue), there never seemed to be many scenes in mainstream movies where the female characters just TALKED about sex. I love writing dialog about sex; having women discuss desire and admit to pleasure. I think this shines the most interesting light on characters. As a kid, I realized that indie and foreign films focused so much more on discussions about sex, and I was hooked. Perhaps the single best example of this is Almodovar's ALL ABOUT MY MOTHER, which may well be the most feminine film ever made, a movie that celebrates Woman as an Actress, Mother, Lover, Nun, Drag Queen, or Transsexual. But for a more mainstream example, I think there's a strong reason why SEX AND THE CITY became the hit it did. The show focused on two things: sororal relationships and TALKING about sex. The result wasn't just that women loved the show, but that they loved watching it with other women! When the 2008 film adaptation came out, there was talk of women buying out entire cinema showings so that they could pack the place with all of their girlfriends and watch it together. My girlfriend at that time mentioned she wanted to see it and when I offered to take her she said, "No, that's a movie that girls have to see with other girls." Watching films is just as communal an experience as the process of making films is, and if SEX AND THE CITY was able to affect that communal experience, that might be making a stronger statement than we realize.
So is SEX AND THE CITY a truly feminist work? It's a show that has always had male fans, and while I personally didn't watch it enough to follow it, I could tell from the few episodes I've seen that the writing was very good and treated its characters intelligently. I think good storytelling is universal, and all I can do is write as I find interesting. You may think differently: perhaps male characters are more interesting to you than women; that's fine. But I feel this little editorial has left me with the following conclusions: 1. Story comes before Political Message, 2. Characterization comes before Gender, 3. Intelligent Writing is inclusive of everyone, and 4. Sexuality is just plain interesting, especially about women.
Dang, I wrote a lot. I didn't even get to talk about LITTLE WOMEN, PRIDE AND PREJUDICE, HUSH HUSH SWEET CHARLOTTE, ANIMAL HOUSE, or FAST TIMES AT RIDGEMONT HIGH, all of which relate to this subject. But I hope I gave an interesting answer to the question...
Loreanism and the Changing Face of Cinema
"And sometimes at the cinema, in the midst of its immense dexterity and enormous technical proficiency, the curtain parts and we behold, far off, some unknown and unexpected beauty. But it is for a moment only.
For a strange thing has happened -- while all the other arts were born naked, this, the youngest, has been born fully clothed. It can say everything before it has anything to say.
It is as if the savage tribe, instead of finding two bars of iron to play with, had found, scattering the seashore, fiddles, flutes, saxophones, trumpets, grand pianos … had begun with incredible energy, but without knowing a note of music, to hammer and thump upon them all at the same time."
-Virginia Woolf
1926
In the past month or so, I’ve found myself contemplative about the future of cinema, which is indeed a young art. At the time of Virginia Woolf’s critique of the medium during the height of the silent era, film might have seemed bombastic and pantomime. In 2012, cinema has changed considerably, become disciplined, and produced content of great artistic merit…but it’s still a young art. The DSLR camera is cheap and available for any would-be maker of film--and maybe film is only now starting to reach its Renaissance.
At a recent New Year’s Eve party, artist and filmmaker Audrey Lorea propositioned to me that cinema is currently in a state of revolution. The disconnect between mainstream audiences and Hollywood movies grows stronger, while a vibrant scene of indie filmmakers on local screens is growing and on the move, suggesting that the old system is dead. Audiences no longer respond to the artifice of Hollywood movies but instead to the emotional rawness of new artists. According to Lorea, in the next three to four years, Hollywood will change and the indie filmmaker will grow in prominence. This means the popularization of the short film, and the rise of an experimental approach. If Lorea’s upcoming indie film HEAVEN IS NOW, which I am highly anticipating, lives up to its hype, it could well be one of the films that heralds this revolution.
This Lorean Revolution is not necessarily without precedent. The rise of the music video in the 1980’s was similarly Lorean, and it led to the career of David Fincher. The independent film movement of the ‘80’s and ‘90’s, made in response to the growing audience fatigue with studio blockbusters, and which gave us the careers of Spike Lee, John Singleton, and Tarantino, was also Lorean. And of course, the biggest one of all, the New Hollywood movement of the late ‘60’s and ‘70’s, where the old studio system was replaced with a new generation of independent-minded filmmakers like Scorsese, Arthur Penn, William Friedkin, and Terrence Malick, was absolutely Lorean in its scope. Yet, all of these movements, while breaking away from a traditional studio/box office mentality, were not completely naked of studio interference. At the end of the day, Malick’s work, as artistic and abstract and un-Hollywood as it may seem, still consists of content produced with studio money and released by traditional film distributors.
And yet, a glimmer of the Lorean model can still be observed, though, to quote Virginia Woolf, it is for a moment only. At the end of the classic documentary HEARTS OF DARKNESS, Francis Ford Coppola comments that with the rising technology and accessibility of filmmaking tools he hopes that “a little fat girl in Ohio will be the new Mozart…And for once, the so-called professionalism about movies will be destroyed forever, and it will really be an art form.”
Imagine that! Cinema created by the people, not the businessmen! The problem with films is that they are monetized. But if we abolish the box office, and people start making films for the sake of making them, then it will be art! Hearing Coppola propose this idea seems ironic. It’s almost as if he is stating the mission statement of the New Hollywood movement, yet he was not able to accomplish it. The movement was cut short and Coppola’s career would have major setbacks.
And now, this is where indie filmmakers are today. No studios! No box office! No corporate motivations! The cinema of the DSLR camera is free--free to experiment and change things forever.
The Revolution is starting, but why isn’t it in full swing yet? Presumably, Hollywood has yet to notice how much potential there truly is in indie cinema. This is changing though. Last year I discovered an experimental film entitled ZENITH, directed by “Anonymous,” that is unlike anything I’ve ever seen in my life, and had the production value of a Hollywood film. It is on its way to becoming a cult classic. Consider the campaign occurring right now with THE ANGRY VIDEO GAME NERD film. Internet celebrity James Rolfe has produced hundred upon hundreds of videos for the web, all self-produced, shot, and edited, and met with a great cult following, with no corporate interference, aside from website hosting. When he announced he was going to be turning his ANGRY VIDEO GAME NERD web-series into a feature film, he surprisingly raised over a quarter-million dollars on IndieGoGo (I am happy to say I donated to the film)! He is starting production right now in California! I for one am greatly looking forward to this indie film when it is finished; considering the large following he has, I have a hard time imagining it wouldn’t be a huge success! This movie could very well be the final nail in the coffin: the film that makes audiences realize that Hollywood is obsolete! Rolfe and his fans are the new studio system, and he is the true Lorean figure!
The question is, will cinema be all the better for this revolution? The content will change, but will the quality? Box office will be less of a concern, but will artistic merit rise? What would Virginia Woolf have to say about all this? Personally, with medium-altering experiments like ZENITH and HEAVEN IS NOW on the horizon, as well as industry-altering productions like THE ANGRY VIDEO GAME NERD movie, I for one think that Loreanism will be a good thing. After a century of struggling, and attempts by previous generations, cinema finally reaches its “zenith.”
Let the Lorean Revolution come!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)