Not so fast

Andrea Harris has a favorite stop of mine in blogworld.  (You can see her off to the side there in the Pantheon.)  This post of hers, about tourists having mental meltdowns when their real trip abroad destroys their romantic notions of the destination, brought brought out a comment that is making me scratch my head a bit:

Pity they didn’t bother to read about Paris (especially material not put out by the travel industry) rather than rely on a medium intended and designed to transmit lies.

I object to this, and I will explain why.  (At length - lucky you!)  Movies are not a medium intended and designed to transmit lies, any more than television, or novels, or plays, or art, or video games. All these are media intended and designed to transmit IDEAS or STORIES. Some of those may well be outright lies; some of those are excellently-crafted. There are also truthful stories, and beautiful ideas, and nobility and kindness and grandeur.

Since images and feelings are more immediate, most art aims for those instead of thoughts. No argument on that point. I do think that to simply call the whole thing "lies" by design is to miss the point, however. One of the earliest moving pictures was in fact used to truthfully answer a question: does a horse pick all four feet off the ground at once while galloping? (Turns out that they do.)

Look - I'm a storyteller by nature, if not by profession.  (And there's a long post brewing about that conflict: stay tuned.)  This is my passion.  I would be willing to go on a limb and say that for most creative community, that passion is a primary motivation.  They have turned that passion into a job.

Once you turn a passion into a means of commerce, things change.  As long as I'm just writing, I can just write.  Once I am also selling, then the writing has to meet the demands of those to whom I wish to sell.  It's a dilution - not much of one, since an audience wants a compelling story above all, and storytellers are nothing if not compelled.  Still, they may have no taste for the story struggling to free itself from my mind.  At that point it's the old familiar choice: give 'em what they want or say what I need to say?

Here's the thing, though: that tension exists in EVERY business.  Some people's passion is food.  They become amazing chefs.  They also have to consider: will people pay money to eat this?  How much?  Again, the dilution is slight.  People want great food, chefs want to cook great food.  But people can scarcely afford $100 meals every night, not in great enough numbers to keep the chefs themselves fed.  So ingredients are swapped, flavors change, and viola - Chili's.  Or Wendy's.

I won't pretend that line cooks at a chain restaurant give two shakes of a rat's patoot about Great Food in the abstract, but they care at least about how the particular food they're actually cooking, that it should be done properly and please the customers.  And the people who develop the menus care much more about that abstract, the ideal of flavors.  Even Dave Thomas, the founder of Wendy's, cared a great deal about it, even if it was just burgers and fries.  He may not have been a chef on the par of a Gordon Ramsay or Julia Child, but he cared.  He had to.  Ultimately, if you make too many changes for commerce - too much dilution - then one loses both the passion and the commerce.

You will find the same tension in every walk of life: in education, in politics, in construction, in sports.  There is a perfect ideal, that drives everyone with a passion, and then there is the economic reality.  It would cost too much to make every teacher an Ivy League-quality professor (and not every one of them could be, anyway), though the children would benefit.  It costs money to campaign, money to run a government - too much to run unelectable candidates no matter how great they may be at governing.  Should my house get obliterated by meteorites or something, it would cost twice as much to construct the way it was originally built vs. using modern materials like sheetrock.  And the greatest players in the world command a great deal of money, more than any one franchise could pay (even the Yankees or Red Sox); so they make do with affordable players rather than pursue the perfect ideal of 162-0.

Yet those ideals exist.  Those passions are real.  Every teacher wants to teach as well as possible, every politician hopes to govern, every housebuilder (and homeowner!) wants the home to endure, and every team wants to win every game, or at least their league's chamionship.  Without those ideals, that passion, there would be no point in even starting.

That's why I say again that filmmaking is about ideas and stories, not lies.  Based on some of the loopier things that movie-folk say and do, it's easy to believe that Hollywood is full of narcissists who dictate What is Acceptable to the rest of us, when in fact they are full of crap.  There is some justice in the claim, perhaps, in certain examples.  Certainly Tim Robbins and Sean Penn have done more than their share of loopy lefty proselytizing.  But they didn't become actors to be able to dictate What is Acceptable, they did it because their passion is in the stories they tell.  Those who have lost that passion are usually the worst at their profession, and again, this holds across all walks of life.

Not surprisingly, when singers and athletes and kindergarten teachers also lose that passion, they become fairly useless in their fields as well.  That doesn't mean that music, sports, and knowledge itself is intended and designed only to convey lies, does it?

(Funny how this comes up when I'm working on a story that indirectly touches this idea - that of the storyteller as a professional liar.  Reality keeps anticipating me.  Bad reality!  No cookie!)

Das Leben der Anderen

or The Lives of Others.

The story of the Stasi (the East German secret police) monitoring a playwright and his actress girlfriend circa 1984. These lefties who think that the old Soviet Union was the greatest thing since sliced bread need to see this movie.

German with English subtitles. Maybe twenty years ago I could have gotten by without subtitles, but not today.

One scene of nudity, but it's not porn. It's actually quite depressing.

Don't tell Sheila

Much to her chagrin, Hollywood may actually do this someday. The blood across the journal is strangely, shockingly apt - and very wrong.

(Sheila's original post on the book, btw, for reference.)

Reefer Madness

Last night the good folks at Netflix brought me the 1936 documentary "Reefer Madness". Guys, this film has more laughs in it that most movies that try to be. The intro brushes over heroin and cocaine to warn parents of the real threat to their children, the madness of "marihuana".

The school principal is talking to this kid who was a straight A student and top tennis player until he started listening to jazz and smoking reefer. 'So Bill," asks the principal, "Have you picked up any bad habits lately?" I shouted at the screen, "You know he's smoking reefer! Ask him if he's smoking reefer!"

There are teens using reefer and then committing murder (I didn't think a stoner would be that motivated.)

The dealer doesn't sell his dope by the ounce; he buys it from the supplier premade into cigarettes. The machine used to roll the joints was very similar to a kind of machine advertised on TV for tobacco back in the 1970's (Who here remembers cigarette ads on TV?)

Also, there is a scene where the principal is on the office of the local FBI. "Marihauna is grown in every state of the union, "explain the G-man, 'There's no interstate commerce so our hands are tied." Been a long time since anyone in the federal government gave a rat's toenail about the Interstate Commerce Clause.

I am worried about my employer. He listens to a lot of jazz, and that leads to getting hooked on reefer.

OMG! I listened to Steely Dan last night. Am I next to succumb?

Oh HELLS NO

Keanu, get yer stinkin' paws off my Bebop, you durned dirty hack!

On the bright side, it IS a 20th Century Fox production, so my fan-fic Star Wars/Bebop crossover is a greenlight, baby. And before you laugh at THAT, consider that my story is likely to be far superior to anything the Kee-Ann-U is likely to do with the original.

Stuff I've been reading

I haven't put these on the sidebar or anything, but there are some interesting reads and blogs out there that I've been perusing lately:

The Puck Update blog - no combox, no drama; just quick links and short author's comments on all things hockey (and a few tangents). It's kind of Glenn Reynoldish, only about grown men in short pants with fewer teeth. If he had comments, I would point out something fun about his last entry: he says "The 1970's Pirates called, they want their uniform back," and the picture he used to illustrate it is clearly a 1984 Donruss card. Heh. (Poor old Johnny Ray....)

Joe Posnanski - excellent baseball (and other stuff) long-form blogger, with lively and polite commenters for the most part. He's writing a book about the 1975 Reds, too.

Dirty Harry's Place - "a conservative look at film, punk." It can get awfully political out there, hence the "conservative look" part. I see where DH is comin' from. A great deal of the creative folk out there are lefties. I'm not convinced that there should be a "right" and "left" or a "liberal" and "conservative" movie review. Hey - it doesn't matter if you make good film, right? Sure, a lot of bad films get made simply because they adhere to the template the majority of Hollywood holds; likewise, a lot of bad films get made simply because they uphold solid Christian values - sadly, none of them seem to have anything to do with strong writing, good acting, or production values.*

* I'm going to borrow a "pozterisk," as Joe Posnanski's commenters call it - I think a tale is better off with a clear moral worldview, but 1. that's not all that it has to have, it has to be a GOOD tale; and 2. that doesn't mean cookie cutter or black-and-white or "things that cannot be said or shown." For me, it means that I can't play my audience for fools: I have to "play for keeps" with mystory. Whether it's a happy or tragic ending, the choices the characters make have to be true choices THEY make, and not ones I make for them in order to get to where I want to go; or worse, where I want the audience to go. Playing fair by my story will automatically mean I play fair with anyone who reads it, but manipulating things will be noticed and resented.**

To be honest, I'm of two minds about it. I don't like politics über alles. I don't particularly enjoy it when the whole production screeches to a halt to present The Point - if the creators are doing their job, the audience will get the point without a billboard, voiceover, and swelling soundtrack. Being a sinner, I will admit that I am far more annoyed at messages I dispute, but even those I agree with had better not take me out of the story. And agree or not, make me think, OK? Make the point an organic part of the story, and don't subvert the entire thing simply as a framing device for your Profound Theme for Important People. It's lying to your paying customers - you sucker us in with the promise of a well-told tale, and then fob off your shopworn term paper ethics on us. (As I said at DH's, I'm getting mental hypertension from all the salt I have to take while trying to just enjoy everyday life.)

DH is consciously trying to stand against people who shower heaps of praise on turkey-feather projects simply because they cater to the Correct Way of Thinking. He will drop everything to do an explicitly political post, and then drop everything else to do a pure film post - top five lists galore, open threads, etc. In the end, I haven't blogrolled him because ultimately I want a film look at film, not a liberal, conservative, or salt-water-taffy look at it, though I have blown off some frustration in his comboxes. It's just... well, I know what I'm getting into when I go there, it doesn't waylay me, but I can't live off of that alone.

(Besides, Sheila is fantastic on film from an artist's perspective.)

** Uh-oh - double Poz. I feel the need to add that I've always thought of God as more than merely a scientist or engineer, but a great artist and lover of poetry, beauty, and creativity. He invented all those things. So, a good tale has always been, to me, hand-in-glove with the mystery of free will for us. A great story is great in proportion to how closely it approaches the freedom God gives us while still "getting where He wants to go."

His story - the one in which we play our parts - is by definition "for keeps" because it carries real consequences for us and everyone around us; effects that definitely happen "live" like a stage show. We can't do the third scene of Act II over if we flub our lines or forget our motivation and sleepwalk through our role! It determines our eternal destiny as well - though there's the hope that, in His mercy, he can correct a few things post-production. And it also helps explain why te Author doesn't "make us do stuff" or magically undo our real choices. He will act Himself if He pleases, and sometimes the effects of what we do are mitigated, bu for the most part He isn't interested in ruining the story He wishes to tell for us, and to us, and through us. He is playing fair with us as we want to be played fair with in our art. We are offered that part in His creation (and thank God, we don't have to audition for the lead). To refuse that offer is, in effect, to trade our "walk-on part in the war for a lead role in a cage."

Rich's ComixBlog - featuring the completely awesome "Ten Doctors" webcomic. Yes, that's Ten Doctors Who. (Ten Time Lords leaping, nine K-9s rolling, eight Daleks zapping, seven companions yellng, six Tardii vanishing.... FIVE SONIC SCREWDRIVERS!) (Ba-dum BUM BUM) Just fun, well-done stuff. Even the special effects are better than some parts of the original run.

The Superest! - apparently, there's a game called "Your Team, My Team" in which someone thinks of a hero with a specific, narrowly-defined power, and someone else thinks of a hero with an ability that specifically defeats only that hero. The more specific and arcane the ability, the better - "My guy can turn into any animal" is pretty dumb; "my guy turns into a purple-throated thrush every Tuesday at 8 am" is much better. (And MY guy is a taxidermist specializing in purple-throated thrushes who only works Tuesdays, and HIS guy compulsively steals - but only the miniature glass eyeballs used in taxidermy, etc etc. And unexpected defeats are preferable to obvious ones.)

Matthew Sutter and Kevin Cornell have been playing this game for almost a year, and their creations (with the accompanying pictures) are a riot. (Thanks to Ricki for leading me to their site!)

To the Bitter Psychedelic End

I watched 2001: A Space Odyssey last night. I must say, the special effects hold up well for a 40-year-old film.

Maybe it's because I don't smoke weed, but I could have cut a half hour from that movie and not missed a thing. I didn't remember all that psychedelic stuff. I guess folks felt differently in 1968.

It's also interesting to see how Kubrick in 1968 saw 2001. No cellphones. AT&T still had a monopoly on long distance service. The business suit hasn't changed as much as Kubrick predicted. And New York City doesn't have 40 million starving people in it. (Whoops! That's Soylent Green).

Surprizing little dialogue. My favorite line was also used by Richard Pryor in a bit about taking acid.

"Open the pod bay doors, HAL."
"I can't do that, Dave."

As soon as Netflix gets their act together, my next film is the sequel, 2010.

Holly Go Lighten Up

Dawn Eden proves her powers of awesome by writing a fine op-ed while still recovering from surgery.

The ongoing discussion about Sex and the City (sparked by the new movie) has brought out some good points about the competing cultural values. As quoted in Dawn's op-ed, the creators of the show had a pretty clear objective: "As he [producer Darren Star] told Entertainment Weekly, 'I really wanted to do a show that objectified men.' "

Some people see no problem with that, and wonder why we're fussing. I think the best way to demonstrate it is to compare SATC with Breakfast at Tiffany's.

All five women (the four leads of SATC and Holly Golightly) live glitzy, fab lives in the heart of New York City. All of them are "free agents" - with Holly having ditched a kindly older husband (Buddy Ebsen) to get to that point. All indulge themselves in a good many vices. All long for a home, but loathe the idea of being caged. And Carrie and Holly have at least one flawed knight riding into the picture - Mr. Big and Paul Varjak. Why should one be preferred to the other?

I think that there are two big reasons, which go side-by-side in my mind - first, that Breakfast occurs in a moral world, and second, that it is a better-crafted work.

Holly may well be a call girl, but both the character and the film have quite a different attitude to it than Carrie does to her sexual exploits. Holly is matter-of-fact about it (as much as she could be in the days of the Code) but she is equally matter-of-fact about the consequences. The only creature she can bond with is Cat - and even he gets tossed into the street in a fit of self-loathing. And the self-described "wild thing," in the end, realizes that settling for appearance instead of substance is a poor idea. She even says at one point, "I don't want to own anything until I find a place where things and I go together." Paul is much the same, and his own self-loathing at being 2-E's "kept man" is palpable, and he dreams of escape.

Despite their flaws, Holly and Paul are people one can root for - one hopes that they will escape, and find their rainbow's end. This is something I've never seen in any clip of SATC. There, appearances and sensations are the whole point. There's nothing to escape from. Sure, Carrie wants a Prince Charming, but is she willing to change who she is once she finds him, or does she want him on no terms but her own?

That leads right into the dramatic crafting of the show. It's possible of course to do a show about nothing, as Seinfeld was famously described by Larry David - it's also no surprise in the end to find that, as much as the show may have entertained, it didn't actually mean anything. Certainly it's foolish to think of such a show as "boundary-breaking" or whatever the phrase is. Strictly speaking, such a show recognizes no boundaries at all. If men could flap their arms and fly away nobody would have thought that the Wright Brothers accomplished anything; likewise, a show that doesn't adhere to any sort of moral framework isn't really daring anything.

If one doesn't consider promiscuity a serious moral failing, then it's simple to consider Carrie a positive character. It's much trickier to treat promiscuity as wicked (or at least an obstacle to true happiness) and yet have Holly and Paul come out as sympathetic. It takes more skill. What we know of Truman Capote's life is quite sad, but he was at least an honest writer and did not presume that his failings were something the characters in his book ought to aspire to.

The creators of SATC have no such compunction, as we have seen, and the consequence is that people take them as they mean to be taken. The result isn't just that men are objectified, either. By treating their potential Princes as commodities, the women in SATC do great damage to themselves. Simply put, one can't respect one's stuff. One may lose weight to fit into a fabulous dress one simply MUST have - but that's only because the dress flatters one; if it goes out of style, it goes into the trash. There's no question of appealing to the dress, or wondering what the dress wants. How could there be? Stuff exists for one purpose only, and that's to serve the interests of its owner. But a husband or wife is not merely just another accessory like shoes or a handbag or a great dress, and treating them that way kills the human connection that the characters claim to want. In such an atmosphere one can't be an equal, can barely aspire to be even as much as a pet.

Unless Carrie decides to act far above the standards upheld by the show, she is not going to be a good partner for Mr. Big, precisely because she won't be looking for a partner for herself. She will be looking for (begging your pardon) a good sexual accessory, and the character's nickname is certainly a tip-off to how the four friends thought of him at first.

Should there really be so much of a fuss over a TV show (now movie)? That depends. I don't think that the show beams subliminal messages into one's brain to sleep around and buy stuff one can't afford. Neither do I think that unlikeable main characters are a death knell for any book or show. What is, to me, the deal-breaker is that the writers of the show ought to play fair with the audience and demonstrate some sort of grounds rules for the characters, and then hold them to those rules.

Even Seinfeld wound up with its self-absorbed "no learning, no hugging" characters in jail, true to their shallow vanities to the last and justly rewarded for it. The Sopranos ended with a Dante-like twist - Tony forever trapped in a small, mean circle of hell, looking over his shoulder for the next threat; his future represented by his uncle (the former boss of the family) crumbling from Alzheimer's in a jail-like nursing facility, and his son sucked back into apathy. David Chase may as well have chosen "Once in a Lifetime" for the end sequence - same as it ever was, same as it ever was. We never see if Tony is killed because we don't need to.

Of course, SATC is fluff, "just a show" - but it's fluff that presumes a point of view that would prove ruinous to anyone who actually tried to live that way. That doesn't mean that watching will automatically turn us all into harlots with dishy friends and fab clothes; but it's not healthy to hold up that sort of thing as a positive.

The whole world's movie meme

You can see lists at Tracey's, and at Sheila's, and at Cullen's, and probably forty-seven other spots too. The rules are simple: go down the list, bold everything you loved and italicize everything you hated. Leave as is stuff you've never seen.

Some people have been taking to outlining the Best of the Best in red or in really huge font to specify more than a mere thumbs-up or down. It's a good idea and I'll follow this convention by highlighting in red my all-time top faves. (In short, do I just stop and stare at it when it comes on the TV?)

One note before we begin - I copied and pasted the list, of course... but when I did, Blogger decided to remove all the line breaks. I am now not only highlighting, bolding, and what-not-ing, but I have to make sure I don't accidentally erase something by hitting "return" while it's still highlighted. If there's anything missing folks, that's why. And if I have any comments, they follow the selection.

The Godfather (1972)
The Shawshank Redemption (1994)
The Godfather: Part II (1974)
The Good, the Bad and the Ugly (1966) - honorable mention, since I have and love the soundtrack
Pulp Fiction (1994) - but surprisingly, my favorite of Tarantino's movies is not on this list at all, Jackie Brown (1997)
Schindler’s List (1993)
Star Wars: Episode V - The Empire Strikes Back (1980) - George Lucas should have re-watched this about twenty times before writing the prequels
One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest (1975)
Casablanca (1942)
The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King (2003)
Star Wars (1977) - I still probably know about 75% of the dialogue by heart. And HAN SHOT FIRST.
12 Angry Men (1957)
Rear Window (1954)
No Country for Old Men (2007)
Goodfellas (1990) - I've actually played on a hockey team named after this movie, but still haven't seen it
Raiders of the Lost Ark (1981) - think about Harrison Ford... in the space of five years he got to be Han Solo, Indiana Jones, and Rick Deckard. And can you think of anyone else in any of those roles? Look at Kurt Russell's line reads for Han or Tom Selleck's promo pics as Indy. Those guys are good actors, too, but neither movie would have been as good.
The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring (2001)
City of God (2002)
Once Upon a Time in the West (1968)
The Usual Suspects (1995)
Psycho (1960)
Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb (1964) - been a long time, so though I have seen it, I can't remember if I enjoyed it or not
Citizen Kane (1941)
The Silence of the Lambs (1991) - eh. I don't hate it out loud or anything, but I don't see the huge Oscar-winning deal about it
North by Northwest (1959)
The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers (2002)
Fight Club (1999)
Memento (2000)
Sunset Blvd. (1950)
Lawrence of Arabia (1962)
It’s a Wonderful Life (1946)
The Matrix (1999) - if only the Wachoskis had stopped here
Taxi Driver (1976)
Se7en (1995)
Apocalypse Now (1979)
American Beauty (1999)
Vertigo (1958)
Amélie (2001)
The Departed (2006)
Paths of Glory (1957)
American History X (1998)
To Kill a Mockingbird (1962) - Gregory Peck is wonderful in this
Chinatown (1974)
Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind (2004)
The Third Man (1949)
A Clockwork Orange (1971) - enjoyed? No. But it's a hell of a movie
Pan’s Labyrinth (2006)
The Treasure of the Sierra Madre (1948)
Alien (1979)
The Pianist (2002)
The Shining (1980)
Double Indemnity (1944)
L.A. Confidential (1997)
Leben der Anderen, Das [The Lives of Others] (2006)
The Bridge on the River Kwai (1957) - it's embarassing how many of these I've always meant to see and didn't
Boot, Das (1981)
The Maltese Falcon (1941)
Saving Private Ryan (1998)
Reservoir Dogs (1992)
Forrest Gump (1994)
Metropolis (1927)
Aliens (1986)
Raging Bull (1980)
Rashômon (1950)
Singin’ in the Rain (1952)
Rebecca (1940)
Hotel Rwanda (2004)
Sin City (2005)
Terminator 2: Judgment Day (1991)
All About Eve (1950)
Modern Times (1936)
Some Like It Hot (1959)
2001: A Space Odyssey (1968) - I sort of kind of liked it, but boy is it dull. Needs more Roy Scheider
The Seventh Seal (1957)
The Great Escape (1963)
Amadeus (1984)
On the Waterfront (1954)
Touch of Evil (1958)
The Elephant Man (1980)
The Prestige (2006)
Vita è bella, La [Life Is Beautiful] (1997) - I don't hold Roberto Bellini's insanity against the film
Jaws (1975) - bonus points for being one of the better "As Told By Bunnies" spoofs
The Manchurian Candidate (1962) -
The Sting (1973)
Strangers on a Train (1951)
Full Metal Jacket (1987)
The Apartment (1960)
City Lights (1931)
Braveheart (1995)
Cinema Paradiso (1988)
Batman Begins (2005)
The Big Sleep (1946)
Mr. Smith Goes to Washington (1939)
Once Upon a Time in America (1984)
Blade Runner (1982) - only bits and pieces. I am lame
The Great Dictator (1940)
The Wizard of Oz (1939)
Notorious (1946)
Salaire de la peur, Le [The Wages of Fear](1953)
High Noon (1952)
Star Wars: Episode VI - Return of the Jedi (1983)
Fargo (1996)
The Bourne Ultimatum (2007)
Unforgiven (1992)
Back to the Future (1985)
Ran (1985)
Oldboy (2003)
Million Dollar Baby (2004)
Cool Hand Luke (1967)
Kill Bill: Vol. 1 (2003)
Donnie Darko (2001)
Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade (1989)
The Green Mile (1999)
Annie Hall (1977)
Kind Hearts and Coronets (1949)
Gladiator (2000)
The Sixth Sense (1999) - unfortunately
Diaboliques, Les [The Devils] (1955)
Ben-Hur (1959) - again bonus points for the third-grade version from that commercial a few years back. No, that's not rational at all, but it's my list. So there.
It Happened One Night (1934)
The Deer Hunter (1978)
Life of Brian (1979)
Die Hard (1988)
The General (1927) - the Inspector General, with Danny Kaye? Oh? Well, then, no.
American Gangster (2007)
Platoon (1986)
V for Vendetta (2005)
Judgment at Nuremberg (1961)
The Graduate (1967)
The Princess Bride (1987)
Crash (2004/I)
The Wild Bunch (1969)
Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid (1969)
Letters from Iwo Jima (2006)
Heat (1995)
Gandhi (1982)
Harvey (1950)
The Night of the Hunter (1955)
The African Queen (1951)
Stand by Me (1986)
Kill Bill: Vol. 2 (2004) - but not as much as the first one
Witness for the Prosecution (1957) - I've read the play, it was great
The Big Lebowski (1998)
The Conversation (1974)
Little Miss Sunshine (2006)
Wo hu cang long [Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon ] (2000)
The Grapes of Wrath (1940)
Gone with the Wind (1939)
3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Cabinet des Dr. Caligari., Das [The Cabinet of Dr Caligari] (1920)
The Thing (1982)
Groundhog Day (1993)
The Best Years of Our Lives (1946)
Sleuth (1972)
Patton (1970)
Toy Story (1995)
Glory (1989)
Out of the Past (1947)
Twelve Monkeys (1995)
Ed Wood (1994)
Spartacus (1960)
The Terminator (1984)
In the Heat of the Night (1967)
The Philadelphia Story (1940)
The Exorcist (1973)
Frankenstein (1931)
Anatomy of a Murder (1959)
The Hustler (1961)
Toy Story 2 (1999)
The Lion King (1994) - negative points for the voice of Whoopi Goldberg
Big Fish (2003) - the movie that made me forgive Tim Burton for "Sleepy Hollow"
Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels (1998)
Bonnie and Clyde (1967) - eh. Nice to see very early Gene Hackman and Gene Wilder roles, though.
Young Frankenstein (1974) - ha, I just noticed, that's back-to-back for Gene Squared!
Magnolia (1999)
A Streetcar Named Desire (1951)
In Cold Blood (1967)
Rosemary’s Baby (1968)
Dial M for Murder (1954)
All Quiet on the Western Front (1930)
Roman Holiday (1953)
A Christmas Story (1983)
Casino (1995)
Manhattan (1979)
Ying xiong [Hero] (2002)
Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl (2003) - again, they should have just quit here. I will never be convinced that either this or the Matrix had any planned sequels until the originals became big successes.
Rope (1948)
Cinderella Man (2005)
The Searchers (1956)
Finding Neverland (2004)
Inherit the Wind (1960)
His Girl Friday (1940)
A Man for All Seasons (1966)
Arsenic and Old Lace (1944)
The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance (1962) - if I ever owned a curtain shop I'd name it "Liberty Valance."

And that's it. A lot of movies I've seen aren't on here. I may follow up next week with a list of some of those, for everyone else to label accordingly.

The Passion of the Muslim Christ

This ain't Mel's movie.

We are talking about the same beautiful man, the same beautiful prophet, the same divine person sent from heaven. In the Koran, it emphasizes maybe three main points: about the birth, about the fact that he was not the son of God, and then, that he was not crucified. The rest is [the same] Jesus ... the sermons, and the miracles, and the political situation.

See! Other than some trivial things like not being the Son of God and not being crucified, The Christian Jesus and the Muslim Jesus are the same guy. So lighten up!

Professor Tolkien got stiffed?

This is so wrong.

The estate of "Lord of the Rings" creator J.R.R. Tolkien is suing the film studio that released the trilogy based on his books, claiming the company hasn't paid it a penny from the estimated $6 billion the films have grossed worldwide.

The suit, filed Monday, claims New Line was required to pay 7.5 percent of gross receipts to Tolkien's estate and other plaintiffs, who contend they only received an upfront payment of $62,500 for the three movies before production began.

The writer's estate, a British charity dubbed The Tolkien Trust, and original "Lord of the Rings" publisher HarperCollins filed the lawsuit against New Line Cinema in Los Angeles Superior Court. If successful, it could block the long-awaited prequel to the films.

Robert Pini, a spokesman for Time Warner Inc.'s New Line, declined to comment.

Movie of the Phoenix

For this review, the Emma Watson Eyebrow Alert is Orange (elevated, but not that often).

Order of the Phoenix has arrived in theaters, and off we went (the Ladybug and I), having read all the books like the big ol' geeks we are.

Things get off to a cracking start right in, with Harry on the swings in a park that seems like it was stolen from Kansas - muted colors, huge prairie skies, and a quick-moving darkness with the promise of a storm. All of it is quite well done, up to the small touches, such as Dudley's (and his gang's) reactions when Harry jumps up to confront them.

From there, however... well, it's like many of the Potter movies: they don't always pick the best stuff to leave in or take out. It really has nothing to do with the plotlines. This book is 850 pages of single-spaced, nine-point type - they will NEVER fit it all. That just means that when you make a change, do it right, and respect the characterizations. The stuff you need to leave in is the stuff that matters later.

So, for example, when you take out a scene make sure that you haven't damaged your characters. (Small spoiler) In the book, there is a lot of Snape and Sirius going back and forth, with Lupin struggling to mediate. With the exception of ONE overheard remark, that vanishes entirely from the film; and without it, where does Sirius get his motivation? It's not that Gary Oldman is bad in the movie - he's quite good, I thought - but the filmmakers could have taken a little more trouble. They also could have mentioned, at least in passing, that Hermione and Ron were made prefects.

Another omission - which isn't really a spoiler since it stems from the previous film, but be warned - S.P.E.W. The whole idea is dropped. I can see the temptation, since it's the sludgiest part of the fourth book, but it proves increasingly important in books five and six. The casual arrogance of the wizarding world in most matters is important to the overall plot: it really underlines why Fudge refuses to believe in the return of Voldemort, it shows how the Dark Lord unites his own followers, it explains why the Order fights an increasingly lonely battle against the Death Eaters. In this movie, they pick a poor solution (which is in Spoiler Vision, since it's a big thing) - they just drop the idea entirely. Are you wondering how Dumbledore is going to win the trust of the elves, centaurs, and giants in their fight? Keep wondering. The elves are barely even an afterthought, even Kreacher; the centaurs get one scene; Hagrid and Grawp are a human-interest sideline. You don't even see Firenze in the film. In its way, the movie is just as arrogant as the wizarding world, by pretending (as the wizards do) that they are the only ones (magical or otherwise) who matter.

What they leave in, however, is for the most part well-done. Daniel Radcliffe does good work here. I got a very good sense of his frustration and struggle; just when Harry feels most at home in the wizarding world, that world speeds up and he feels dragged along, until he decides that it's time to start doing something more than hang on for dear life. As a result, the scenes with the DA are excellent. It's the first conscious step into the adult world for all of them, and as his peers rally around Harry, he rallies as well, and I could see that growth. And three key cast members turn in great performances as well:

1. Evanna Lynch: an excellent choice for Luna Lovegood. She captures her shrewd, spacey personality and never seems over her head. It must have been tricky to show such a character in mortal peril (such as during the fight in the Department of Mysteries), because one has to look detached without making it seem as if one knows it's all CGI whiz-bangs - and she does it.

2. Imelda Staunton: the key performance for me in the entire movie. Reading the book, I felt like it would be difficult for an actor to convey the saccharine disdain of Dolores Umbridge, but she nails it. Even in scenes where I felt the script left out an important point, she carries the day - especially in the Dark Forest. She's more menacing than the dragon from the last movie.

3. Alan Rickman: each of these movies seems to take a turn neglecting a major character, and Severus Snape was odd man out in Goblet of Fire. He comes roaring back here. This is the kind of thing the fans have been waiting for since he hit Kenneth Branaugh with the expelliarmus jinx in Chamber of Secrets - I can't be as detailed as Sheila would be, but there wasn't a weak moment with him on the screen.

Alas, it's not all pumpkin juice and chocolate frogs. Helena Bonham Carter looks like Cruella DeVil and hams it up on autopilot. (At least she didn't require any makeup to play Bellatrix.) The campaign against Umbridge by the Weasley twins and the other students is eviscerated. I'm also not sold on the use of the Daily Prophet headlines as a transition device; after a while it just felt like the writers gave up and did it to get the movie finished.

This movie's Disappearing Act goes to the horribly underused Emma Thompson and Maggie Smith. You'd think that if one had an Emma Thompson and a Maggie Smith at one's disposal, one would be inclined to make good use of it. But there are at least two major scenes that are entirely missing, and one other that was mis-handled. The most damaging omission requires more Spoiler Vision: where is the career counseling? The movies seem all too content to pretend that the characters don't matter after the end of The Deathly Hallows, which is really starting to tick me off, not only as a fan but as a writer. Great characters live on even when their story is not being told, and a smart writer respects both the character and the fan by providing them with the foundation for that future. This movie doesn't do that. I got the impression that the movie itself doesn't care what happens to its own star, which is usually fatal to the whole suspension of disbelief. Do not dispel, as I've mentioned before. It is vital to know that Harry wants to be an Auror, and that McGonagall is defying Umbridge by promising all her efforts to further that desire; it explains both of them in a way that forty pages of omniscient narration couldn't.

The big flaw, we may as well meet head-on, out loud (as it were). I'm sure Michael Gambon is a fine chap and a good actor, but he just isn't Dumbledore. At no point whatsoever in these three movies have we ever gotten the impression that this is the only wizard the Dark Lord ever feared. (In this film there are the following Spoiler Examples: His escape from Fudge and the Aurors in his office is lame, and his appearance at the Ministry isn't much better: the film gives him no role in defeating the Death Eaters. Even his fight with Voldemort, which is well-done, omits the symbolic and important destruction of the fountain. And his tense interview with Harry in his office lasts THREE LINES in the movie, which is outrageous.) It's not just that the films are limiting Dumbledore's scenes the way they've done with everyone else, it's the manner in which Gambon has gone about them. Dumbledore has a gentle air which never spoils his gravitas. He is supremely comfortable with himself and others, and as a result permits himself both doubt and whimsy without any defense mechanism: no hiding, no bluster, no panic; no need to raise his voice for fear that he won't be heard, and no fear about what other people think or say about him. This is not a routine man, but Gambon is routine in his portrayal. As a result he makes Dumbledore seem an ordinary, crotchety oldster. They should have just stuck some age makeup on Ewan McGregor and been done with it.

All told, however, I don't want to put anyone off seeing the movie. There are some wonderful moments, and enough of the important stuff happens. All in all, solidly done, and in honor of the O.W.L.s:

Radcliffe - E (exceeds expectations)
Watson - A (acceptable)
Grint - A
Lynch - E
Staunton - O (outstanding)
Rickman - O
Gambon - D (dreadful)
Effects, set pieces, and such - E
Plot and writing - P (poor) (too much left out)

Overall - A for Acceptable.

Practically giving it all away

OK, let's get this movie thing out of the way.

You remember the groundrules - guess the ten movies based on IMDB's plot keywords, which usually left much to be desired. I also gave some cheater clues, which you can still see in the post by highlighting the "blank" spaces. (Think of it as the cyber equivalent of those "Yes and Know" books.)

So far, 3-8 and 10 are correctly identified, as follows:

3. Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory (Nick)
4. Star Wars (Dave E.)
5. Rocky (Dave E.)
6. The Manchurian Candidate (original) (Nick)
7. Raiders of the Lost Ark (Dave E.)
8. The Wizard of Oz (sarahk)
10. Slap Shot (sarahk)

To keep this from dragging on any more, here are your remaining three movies, with blatant giveaway clues:

1. England, Reformation
2. Giant Cartoon Robot, Harry Connick Jr.
9. Coen Brothers, Spoof of Fight/Chase Scenes

And a warm welcome to the Hive for Nick! It's good to get back in touch with you, bro. Drop me an email.

Tagged again

A movie deal this time, from Joel. The deal is, pick ten favorite movies, write down the top five "plot keywords" for each movie (according to IMDB), and see who can guess those ten movies.

I'd pick different keys for a lot of these, I'll have you know. Oh, and these are simply ten of my faves, since we've established previously that I have difficulty winnowing the field - in no particular order.

1. 1. Tony Award Source, Ethics, Historical, Nobility, Political - pretty good. We're off to a fine start.
2. 2. No Opening Credits, Junkyard, Human-Android Relationship, Government Agent, Tragic Hero - WHAT??!?? "No Opening Credits" is a keyword? And "Human-Android Relationship" sounds like Leisure Suit Larry in Electric Ladyland. Immdibb is a little wack.
3. 3. Cult, Mother-Son Relationship, Miniature People, Grandson, Atmospheric - I'm strongly reconsidering my participation in this meme.
4. 4. Computer, Hyperspace, Outer Space, Martial Arts, Invented Language - Oh. My. Word. I don't even know this one and it's my list.
5. 5. Eggs, Kiss, Competition, Motivation, Inspiration - but not... well... the one single keyword that would make everyone actually recognize the movie?
6. 6. Kissing, Punch, Political Thriller, Sniper Rifle, Bathing Suit - better, but still head-scratching. It's almost like all the people who voted for Sanjaya went to IMDB to write up keywords for movies.
7. 7. Hit By Truck, Amazon, Zombie, Good Vs. Evil, Bondage - this made me laugh like the Joker for five minutes. You are never guessing this movie, unless it's also on your list.
8. 8. Allegory, Teenage Girl, Friendship, It Was All a Dream, Black and White Seques into Color - that's a gimme, which just goes to show you how amazingly goofy some of these plot keys are. Really, these are the five major features of this plot?
9. 9. Merchant, Scam, Nightmare, Pistol, Parenthood - with the exception of "nightmare," these could be the plot keys to the Steely Dan song "Don't Take Me Alive" - I'm a bookkeeper's son/ I don't wanna shoot no one/ But I crossed my old man back in Oregon/ Don't take me alive...
10. 10. Ice Skating, Radio Talk Show, Parade, Marital Problem, St. Bernard - oh, that is IT. This is one long frolic through the catnip. Enough.

I'm doing this again, with my own keywords - below, in Spoiler Vision - for those who can't get the movies with the above list. Same order. Don't highlight the blank space if you want the fun of guessing wildly like a moron shouting at the TV during "Jeopardy." Go one or two words at a time, though, because these will probably make them far easier.

1. This one you should get.
2. This one, too, but my five would be - Robot, Boy, Friendship, Army, Hero
3. Contest, Eccentric Characters, Moral Lessons, Musical, Imagination
4. Sci-Fi, Good v. Evil, Mysticism, Friendship, Hero - admittedly a little broad, but all of these are the main points of the movie.
5. BOXING. (I mean, what the hell was so hard about that?) Other four, if you really want them: Underdog, Romance, Inspiration, Oscar Winner.
6. Political, Thriller, Brainwashing, Solitaire, Assassination.
7. Swashbuckler, Relics, Nazis, Daring Escapes. That's all you need.
8. Fantasy, Musical, Tornado, Friendship, Quest... A lot of candidates for #5. This actually is harder than the ones IMDB gave, except for the gimme #3.
9. Offbeat Comedy, Kidnapping, Chases, Bounty Hunter, Visions. Actually had to leave out a few on this one.
10. Not "ice skating," you incredible buffoons. HOCKEY, Comedy, Steel Town, Hired Goons, Fight Scene. They get the DOG, but not the SPORT that's the WHOLE POINT of the movie.

And there you have it, the double-dipped Movie Meme, bonus fun for one and all. Leave your guesses below!

Much better than Slap Shot 2

It's shorter, better-written and acted, and doesn't have a Baldwin in it.



As we've all seen first-hand, YouTube is responsible for some gawd-awful slop, but you find some hidden gems. Star Nicholas Vachon even has the right name for a goalie. He's not as good as Rogie, but I'll admit he's better than me.

So, why am I smiling?


Because I am not left-handed!

I ... am the afternoon!

UPDATE - duhhhhhh.... it would help to actually link the ISB when I say "I'm linking the ISB."

This is... well... wow. I'm linking the ISB on this because he deserves the traffic as a reward for bringing this to greater light.

Your favorite scene may be the iconic image of Gotham's Twilight Avenger haunting the first-story rooftops of suburban Poughkeepsie, NY... or the vigorous training sessions behind the neighborhood Circle K... or Stately Wayne Apartments... or Bats telling his 'old chum' (who may actually be older) that it's time to roll... or Robin nearly choking on his own uniform shirt... or the Riddler unwittingly revealing his long-cherished dream of being a drum major.

According to Chris, there's a sequel. Possible titles:

• Batman: the Hands of Fate
• Batman Conquers the Martians
• Hoodie 2: the Vengeance

Let's just say that if you wrapped Bob Kane's coffin in copper wire, you could power a small city for three days.

A long-fallow seed springs to life

Remember back in August when I ranted about the Transformers?

Well, neither did I. [badumdum] It was a fun way to blow off some steam and have a laugh - sort of like the laugh the producers had on everyone who shelled out their six bucks back in 1986. [rimshot]

Turns out that it's true what they say about "nothing goes away online." I actually got my first comment about that post, nearly six months later. I'm pretty sure that it's a put-on. If not, some poor kid is really taking me way too seriously. Dude - it's a cartoon movie about toys. You probably came up with better on Christmas morning, laying on your He-Man bedspread, making all the sound effects.

That doesn't mean I didn't enjoy it. It's hilariously bad, but I actually do own it, from the grand opening sequence right down to the abrupt closing credits. (No kidding - they just sort of launch into them right on top of the big finish, as if they're too embarrassed for that little fadeout: "It's finally over! But - for how long????" I've never seen credits pull a Blues Brothers getaway before.) I also own Weird Al's UHF, the non-MST3K version of Santa Claus Conquers the Martians, and an old VHS copy of The Mole People.

In short, there are many meats in our cultural stew. I enjoy them clean, sober, and hat-free. I won't insult your tastes if you don't insult mine. Just next time, you may want to read a little further than the post you got by googling "Orson Welles + Big Toy."

The Sheila "Obsession Central" Movie Quiz

Sadly, I am not a movie fanatic, but a mere dabbler, a guy who watches without a whole lot of larger awareness. In fact, it’s why I like to read a lot of the movie and acting stuff on Sheila’s site – I learn and have fun all at once. So, if you’ll forgive an amateur his cheek…

1) What was the last movie you saw, either in a theater or on DVD, and why?
"Breakfast at Tiffany’s." It was a lot of fun (and had that impeccable soundtrack). Having never seen it before (see? AMATEUR), my first impressions may be silly to a practiced eye, but in no particular order: A- NYC is gorgeous. When I’m Supreme Leader, all taxicabs will look like that; B- If you digitially replaced Patricia Neal with Kate Mulgrew, nobody would notice; I really think Patricia/Kate is the same person, sort of like the Highlander; C- Uhm… Mickey Rooney… OH NO. D- I love Cat; E- The guy who played the clerk in Tiffany’s was absolutely perfect, from the tone on down. That’s a professional. He’s magnificent without trying to scene-steal (which would have ruined everything.)

PS - he was also in the "Manchurian Candidate," "Midnight Cowboy," and "Mame."
PPS - OK, I'm a sap - I also looked up Cat's credits on IMDB. And holy smokes, he was Neutron in "This Island Earth"! I am feeling the awesome. (Six degrees of Orangey?)

2) Name the cinematographer whose work you most look forward to seeing, and an example of one of his/her finest achievements.
Uh... ok, see, after all of that, I know zilch about cinematographer credits, though without them the "director's vision" would get nowhere. I could cheat and IMDB various cinematographers and say, wow, this guy's got five of my favorite films in his CV... And really, would it be any lamer than Googling a cat's acting resumé?

3) Joe Don Baker or Bo Svenson?
Well, Joe Don was the Whammer. He was also the lead in the all-time classic MST3K episode, “Mitchell.” (“He looks like the wrathful Buddha… Now he looks like the Moon in ‘A Trip to the Moon!’”) I think we have a winner. (And the bad guy? Martin Balsam, who was in "Breakfast at Tiffany's" with Orangey, who was in "This Island Earth," also spoofed by MST - I'm telling you, Kevin Bacon can just move over.)

4) Name a moment from a movie that made you gasp (in horror, surprise, revelation…)
Just because it was so early in my life… “NO – I am your father.” Gobsmacked, I was.

5) Your favorite movie about the movies.
My shameful admission – I’ve never seen "The Player," or "Sunset Boulevard," and only scraps of "Singing in the Rain." The only movie I've seen about movies was itself much more about the dreaming than the actual business - "The Muppet Movie." "OK, everybody - stay in focus."

6) Your Favorite Fritz Lang movie.
More shame – the closest I’ve ever gotten was an animated remake of "Metropolis". It was well-done, but not the real thing. (Check the trivia - the creator of the manga saw the poster for the movie, but never the movie itself.)

7) Describe the first time you ever recognized yourself in a movie.
Toughie – I love it. The first time was Peter Lorre in "20,000 Leagues Under the Sea": the quiet, hassled assistant, in the background, always smoothing his hair back into place after the popular kid ruffs it up. I've identified with others in many other ways as the years pass and my character develops – but lowly, quiet Conseil, never making waves, always trying to see everyone’s point, was the first.

8) Carole Bouquet or Angela Molina?
Who in the what now? Oh, foreign actresses. I pass. (Which makes HALF the questions so far. Geez, doesn't anyone want to know about "Raising Arizona" or something?)

9) Name a movie that redeems the notion of nostalgia as something more than a bankable commodity.
This is hard for me, because I see plenty of movies that make me feel nostalgic (like the opening shots of "Breakfast at Tiffany's") without the subject matter of nostalgia itself coming up. I always want to build an Lileksian museum of pop-culture curios and cool-looking gizmos from the 19th and 20th centuries. (Seven times I bow to the proprietor of this site.) I guess, in its way, "It's a Wonderful Life" does this, with all of its emphasis on the value of life in how it's lived. Nothing could be more at odds than Bedford Falls as Mr. Potter sees it (assets, targets of acquisition) and how George Bailey sees it as he bursts onto its snowy streets at the end. It's getting misty around here just writing about it.

10) Favorite appearance by an athlete in an acting role.
I loved Sheila’s answer here – Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, “Airplane.” But, as goofy as "Space Jam" was, my vote goes to Charles Barkley. He’s just a naturally engaging guy, and it’s a riot watching him as he gets stuffed by the kid in the pickup game, then goes through therapy and prayer trying to recover his stolen skills. “I swear... I’ll never get a technical again… I won’t hang out with Madonna anymore..." BWAHAHAHA!

11) Favorite Hal Ashby movie.
Surprise - I haven't seen a one. (Shame Level rising... now reading "Russell Crowe throwing cel phone.")

12) Name the first double feature you’d program for opening night of your own revival theater.
It depends on the time of year. Around now, I’m thinking of “Miracle on 34th Street” and "It's a Wonderful Life," with one of the Rankin-Bass shorts to lead it off. (Perhaps the Twilight Zone episode “Night of the Meek” instead, since it’s not as well-known.)

13) What’s the name of your revival theater?
The Satellite of Love. (La la la!)

14) Humphrey Bogart or Elliot Gould?
Bogie – all day long and twice on Sunday.

15) Favorite Robert Stevenson movie.
Well, more Mobius strip movie quizzing - he directed a TV version of Miracle on 34th Street, back in '55. But for me, it's a running battle between "Mary Poppins" and "Darby O'Gill and the Little People." (Yes, I had to look it up. Shame Level - "Lindsay Lohan condolence note.")

16) Describe your favorite moment in a movie that is memorable because of its use of sound.
Actually, lack of sound - Norman Jewison running the credits for "Jesus Christ Superstar" entirely silent after all of that rock music (and Judas chased across the desert by tanks). When I was younger, I wanted to try that myself. My idea, which I may as well give away here, was at the end of a filming of Tale of Two Cities - the camera follows Carton (Clive Owen, of course) as he walks to the guillotine, his narration in the background, and then pulls back as he settles in, rising to catch the sun rising over the very top of the guillotine. "It is a far better place that I go to, than I have ever known..." And then, shwunk - and then, credits in silence.

Well, Norman got there first. Poopie.

17) Pink Flamingoes-- yes or no?
Well, maybe the plastic kind... There's a movie about them? (Now reading "treated for exhaustion.")

18) Your favorite movie soundtrack score.
"Star Wars," and especially the first from ’77. The music is like a character in itself. I’m also partial to the early Bond films, though of course they all recycle a lot of the cues. More recently, I loved Mark Knopfler’s work on "The Princess Bride" and the soundtrack to "The Incredibles" (which I bought the next day). My very first soundtrack, however, and a standouts in its own right, is "Mary Poppins." It helps to have a Julie Andrews at your disposal, of course.

Also, since I mentioned it earlier - "The Muppet Movie." Obviously a lot of my favorite films work for me on many levels.

19) Fay Wray or Naomi Watts?
This question reminds me of Lileks’ Bleat of April 4, 2006. I know the date off the top of my head because I was just re-reading it a few days ago, having saved it. To wit:

Yes. She loves him. The heroine and the ape have special moments together. They watch a sunset. … They ice skate together – a scene that would stand as one of the more embarrassing moments of modern cinema had not Naomi Watt’s vaudeville-routine-for-Kong set that standard a few hours earlier. (She even does the walk-like-an-Egyptian move.) At the end she tries to save the big lug from a swarm of the giant ape’s most fearsome predator, Period Aircraft. Here I must give advice to the young women in the audience: If ever you find yourself in a flimsy gown standing on top of the Empire State Building under the crotch of a giant ape, screaming at the airplanes to leave him alone, your life has taken a wrong turn somewhere.

None of which answers the question. Still… heheheheh.

20) Is there a movie that would make you question the judgment and/or taste of a film critic, blogger or friend if you found out they were an advocate of it?
I’m a fan of “UHF,” so truthfully, I’m not well-qualified to answer this question. I know what I like, and some of it's ridiculous. There are also a few well-made movies that I just don’t care for. But, in general, whenever I hear someone arguing that a movie is important, irreverent, or “breaks all the rules!” my hackles rise. It breaks the rules if you hold the camera upside-down while all of the action is performed off-screen by mimes - that don't make it Kubrick. I really cringe when people tell me that a movie is good merely because they want to look important and impress the Right People.

21) Pick a new category for the Oscars and its first deserving winner.
All my best categories would be anti-Oscars - call them the Shyamalans. We'd have categories such as Most Self-Serving Scene by an Actor/Director; Stupidest Subplot; Most Scenery Chewed; Cheesiest Line; Best Picture - Unintentional Comedy; Worst Miscasting; and Largest Plot Hole. There would be a special sub-category for period movies that ignore all their source material: for example, in "Troy" the seige lasts about nine years less than it did in the Iliad, and the movie killed Agamemnon AND Meneleus even though they both survived the seige. Annoyed the stuffings out of me, that did.

22) Favorite Paul Verhoeven movie.
"RoboCop." There's something touching about Murhpy's trapped shreds of humanity despite all the hokum. And you get Kurtwood Smith bein' mean.

23) What is it that you think movies do better than any other art form?
“Better” in the sense of “more immediate,” I’ll grant you. That’s why they’re so powerful, anyway – whether it’s a Cecil B DeMille epic with a lot of sweeping spectacle, or a very tight, quiet close-up in a thriller, the camera can do things that are very difficult in other media. Still, there are certain limitations, as any book lover will tell you. You can haul a portable DVD player with you on an airplane, for example, but a space battle or a swordfight loses something when shrunk to a seven-by-five box and tinny two-speaker sound. The only limitation on a great book is the reader.

24) Peter Ustinov or Albert Finney?
Albert Finney. He just IS Daddy Warbucks.

25) Favorite movie studio logo, as it appears before a theatrical feature.
I kind of like the old Universal biplane, myself. The modern glowing planet thing is all right, but there’s something organic and fun about the plane hurtling through the void. It has charm. I rather wish that they would take the plane back out for a spin around the new planet – but keep it a plane, and not turn it into a rocket or a flying saucer or something.

26) Name the single most important book about the movies for you personally.
Leonard Maltin wrote a huge compendium of films that gets updated all the time - it's informative, cross-referenced, has tons of stuff you'd otherwise never hear of, and it gets bonus points for mean fun - when you find a movie he's rated "Turkey" the reviews are usually ferocious.

27) Name the movie that features the best twist ending. (Please note the use of any “spoilers” in your answer.)
I like “The Usual Suspects” on this. So memorable, and of course I kicked myself about it afterwards, because the clues are there. It’s just wonderful.

28) Favorite Francois Truffaut movie.
(Danger - redlining - approaching "Internet Sex Tape" - abort!)

29) Olivia Hussey or Claire Danes?
Tough one. I think that I can just begin to forgive Ms. Hussey for the Zeferelli "Romeo and Juliet," a four-time winner in the '69 Shyamalans. It's also cool that she does voice work as well - it's a different skill set, and some pretty good actors are simply terrible at it. Danes, according to her IMDB bio, has been up for a ton of really great roles in a lot of notable films, not to mention the work she's actually done, so I'll grant her talent. But, yeah - I can't hold a grudge for a movie made before I was born, even if it grates on me. (The WHOLE POINT about the balcony scene is that they CAN'T REACH EACH OTHER. And what's with that "Montague!" and "Capulet!" screeching? !$^%&Y!$^!) Oh - oh yeah, Olivia Hussey is my pick. She wasn't the one screeching in the streets like it was a blargin' soccer riot.

30) Your most memorable celebrity encounter.
I can’t count the Jeter sighting, since I was on purse duty and got nothing more than 1.4 seconds of the back of a sweatshirt. Mom tells me I met Barry Manilow when I was too young to remember, which by definition can’t count. And, because I am largely clueless, I missed my shot at the Boss last summer at the bookstore. As strange as this sounds, my closest encounters with anyone remotely known are with Dawn Eden and Sheila herself.

31) When did you first realize that films were directed?
I can’t remember. I seem always to have been vaguely aware that a movie was much like a book or a picture – someone is behind the scenes, without whom an audience sees nothing. But I didn’t really understand what a director actually did until watching “Behind the Scenes” specials. So there he is, explaining the next bit to the actors. Cool.

For me, the big shock was when I found out movies are almost always shot out of sequence. As a boy, I had a definite notion that the actors did it all in order; further, that they didn’t find out what was going to happen until the director told them at that moment, and then they just went off, in character, doing that scene – that they pretty much ad-libbed everything. I had little-to-no clue about scripting and rehearsing and editing.

And of course, I was flabbergasted the first time I saw a documentary camera pull back to reveal some cavernous sound stage, with the actors taking up maybe one-tenth while the rest was stuffed with sound guys, rigging, cameras, assistants, etc. Part of me is still amazed at it. My childhood brain assumed that a movie was filmed in an actual completed room, and that being on the set would be just like watching in the theater, only from a different point of view. I mean, I knew that the Millennium Falcon didn’t actually fly around – but I definitely thought that it was sitting somewhere, completely built and full-size. I thought that, like an iceberg, the visible movie on the screen was merely a fraction of what’s there – that you could visit those places and walk around in them like you could visit the Intrepid or Sagamore Hill. It was crushing to learn that a set will often have nothing more to it than what is likely to be in the shot - no ceilings, barely anything supporting the walls, and floors filled with actor’s marks and a mare’s nest of cables and tape. Seriously, my heart hurt when I found out.

Best of the Badness

Or, "Sheila started it!"

The Underrated Movies series of posts led to underrated performances - beginning with the specific mention of Kee-An-U in Something's Gotta Give. This sent Tracey off on a list of turning point performances (no, not that Turning Point). (PS - Cullen too.)

I can't keep up. I don't follow film closely enough, don't know the craft enough to offer more than the amateur's "liked it/didn't" sort of critiques. In a way, it's almost like beer - I can tell the difference between good beer and bad but am not much of a consumer thereof. (Bingley wept.)

But let me blurt anyway: behold, enjoyably bad movies! Criteria:

1. inane concept
2. ridiculous twists (either plot or character)
3. the Excuse Factor - in other words, was the whole project a thinly-veiled excuse to smuggle in lots of nudity/explosions/special effects?
4. good actors slumming or not yet discovered
5. cheesy music
6. clichéd dialogue/too much exposition
7. unintentional comedy
8. The X-factor: a catchall based on the timing of the movie, becoming a cultural phenomenon, and other less-defined factors.

And here are three to start:

1. The Rock. A surprisingly high score with a lot of, er, "positives" - screwy plot, stupid twists, and excuse factor all a perfect five out of five, notes-by-rote soundtrack (solid four), lots of Slumming (Connery, Ed Harris, David Morse, the late John Spencer), high X-factor (8 of 10), and a decent comedy rating (3 of 5: they lost one point because some of the jokes were intentional). It doesn't take quite top honors, though. Connery is perfect in a movie like this thanks to his Bond training - he even riffs on that, because this character was also in Her Majesty's Secret Service. But Nic Cage loses them a point because he just fits here too well. Connery is obviously taking a step down, Cage not so much. Harris also loses a point, but in a different way - he's wonderful. He actually makes chicken salad out of the chicken feather concept, skills he mastered in The Abyss. You care about what happens to him. 37 of 45.

2. - Commando. "Aul zat matters nau is Jen-ny!" And with that, we are OFF to the races. A lot of movies like this could be considered, but would probably only rate in the 20's. This one, though, takes the rather common action conceit of "forcing good guy to do bad stuff or else" and ramps it up - Ahnold really raises his game here. The twists are preposterous, the set pieces are all cosmically goofy (high Excuse Factor), and the dialogue is a perfect five (never have so many died so often to so many bad dispatch lines - in fact, check the trivia for one that got left on the cutting room floor). Four of five for the music, which is nearly as clichéd as Ahnold's dialogue. (Oh - James Horner. Of course.) No slumming, and discovery factor is low (a young Alyssa Milano), but Dan Hedaya's hilariously-miscast (and misnamed!) South American warlord, Arius, scratches out two points. 36 of 45.

3. Top Gun. The überbadness. Surprisingly loses a point on the twists and the concept, which are corny but so predictable that I can't give it a five. But it takes full marks for Excuse Factor (half of that just for the "oiled guys playing volleyball scene," topped by Hollywood's flexing) and the electro-Loggins soundtrack. Slumming/Discovery is a five thanks to Tim Robbins, Meg Ryan (her first real big role, IIRC), Anthony Daniels, Mr. Strickland from Back to the Future, Tom Skerrit looking bored as hell, and Val Kilmer taking it all to another level - in fact, his performance actually results in a six out of five for Unintentional Comedy, topped by the "Sorry about Goose. (snif!) Everyone liked him. (SNIF!!!!!)" speech. But the Crooze, of course, makes the film. He has zero chemistry with Kelly McGillis - anti-chemistry, even. It actually doesn't even seem odd that he'd rather be late for his dinner with her than miss out on the oiled volleyball game. And then he asks to shower at her place! (Smoooooooth.) It all comes together in the "love scene," a mandatory feature of 80's movies - he looks almost as serious as he does in the sailor suit photos, and soaring above it all, the leaden notes of Berlin's "Take My Breath Away." It did, but only because I cracked three ribs laughing. You have to HAVE breath first, Tom. McGillis should have gotten an Oscar nod for "Best Carrying of Both Sides of a Cinematic Romance." 44 of 45.

The floor is open to other nominees.

(w/t to Sheila for the Crooze Salute, part of this comments thread. Put down your beverages before you read.)